Adams, J.

"We have scrutinized the defendant’s exceptions and find that a minute review of them would result merely in a restatement of familiar principles. It is hardly necessary to do- more than advert to some of the exceptions entered of record, but none has been overlooked.

H. S. Jones, one of the plaintiffs, was asked on the'direct examination whether the premises in question had been infested with flies and mosquitoes subsequently to the construction of the plant. The defendant’s objection was sustained. Thereafter the interrogatory was propounded to several other witnesses and in each instance the court made the same ruling. The defendant excepted to the frequent repetition of the question, but as the answer was recorded “not in the hearing of the jury” we are unable to see how the defense could have been prejudiced. These exceptions are therefore overruled.

The court excluded evidence tending to show the reasonable market value of the land without the plant and the defendant excepted on the ground that the answer would have shown that the witness based his estimate of the decreased value of the land solely on the fact that the plant had been built at its present site. We do not agree with the defendant in its interpretation of the proposed evidence. The gravamen of the complaint is the partial taking of the plaintiffs’ property by the creation of a nuisance, and the jury was specially instructed that the defendant had the right to erect the plant and install the machinery. Dayton v. Asheville, 185 N. C., 12; Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C., 257. The mere circumstance that the witness was not permitted to express an opinion as to the value of the land under conditions which did *723 not exist is not an adequate reason for disturbing tbe -judgment. Tbe other exceptions to tbe evidence, we think, are without substantial merit and require no discussion.

Tbe court gave tbe substance of tbe prayer for instruction which is tbe subject of tbe twenty-third exception; and tbe objection that tbe jury was permitted to attribute tbe decreased market value of tbe property to tbe erection, maintenance, and operation of tbe plant must be taken in connection with tbe explanatory instruction that tbe specific question was whether tbe premises were substantially affected by odors emanating from tbe plant in its operation. Tbe charge on this point, we think, is not subject to tbe criticism that it is impossible to say upon what part of tbe charge tbe verdict was based. Tbe judge, told tbe jury in words that could not have been misunderstood that tbe defendant bad tbe right to operate tbe plant as a governmental function and more than once directed attention to tbe immediate question whether odors emanating from tbe plant substantially decreased tbe market value of tbe land. We are unable to discover any sufficient reason for bolding that upon return of tbe jury to tbe box tbe court’s definition of a nuisance was detrimental to tbe defense. For these reasons exceptions 27-30 must be overruled. Tbe others are formal.

No error.