Opinion by
This is аn appeal from the refusal of the court below to tаke off a judgment of compulsory nonsuit. The plaintiff and defendant were owners of properties which were separated only by a public road. The defendant operated а stone quarry, distant some two hundred and fifty feet from the premises оf plaintiff. The blasting operations were so conducted thаt large pieces of rock were frequently cast upon the property of plaintiff. It appears that, prior tо the explosion, the defendant was good enough to notify the plaintiff, or members of his ■ family, of the impending danger, and to suggest thаt the occupants of the house should retire to a place of safety, in order to escape injury from the blast. In giving this nоtice, defendant seemed to consider that it had dischargеd the full measure of its duty to plaintiff. The trial judge held that there cоuld be no recovery of damages, unless it was shown that defendant was malicious or negligent in the operation of the quarry, аnd he further held that in this case the question of negligence was one of law for the court, and, being of the opinion that the tеstimony did not establish negligence, he refused to take off the judgmеnt of compulsory nonsuit. The court below seems to have оverlooked the fact that the evidence showed direct injury to plaintiff’s property. It showed that as a result of the blasting оperations large pieces of rock were reрeatedly cast upon .and against the dwelling house and prеmises of plaintiff, breaking windows, and breaking slate upon the roof, and depriving him' of the quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. Such acts amounted to a forcible breaking of thе plaintiff’s close, and the injuries resulting therefrom would, under the common law system of
The assignments of error are sustained, and the judgment is reversed with a procedendo.