Nuisance—Overhanging Wall—Prevention of Permanent Building —Erection of Temporary Building—Loss of Intermediate . Profits not Allowed.—In an action to abate a nuisance, consisting of the wall of a house overhanging the plaintiff’s lot, so as to prevent the erection of a permanent building thereupon, damages • for the loss of the profits of the plaintiff’s business between the time of the laying of the foundations of the permanent building and the completion of a temporary building on the rear of the lot, in which his business was carried on, cannot be allowed, where it-appears that plaintiff entered upon his business sooner, by reason of the erection of .the temporary structure, than he would have done if he had completed the permanent building, in the absence of any obstruction, thereto.

Id.—Other Items of Damage—Motion to Strike Out.—Other items of damage, which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, it was proper for the court to refuse to strike from the complaint upon motion.

Id.—Amended and Supplemental Complaint—Discretion of Court— Amendment of Answer.—It was within the discretion of the court to permit the plaintiff to file an amended and supplemental complaint setting forth an additional item of damages, and to allow it to be filed at the trial, and to refuse to permit the defendant to file a proposed amendment to the answer to the amended and supplemental complaint after the close of the trial, so as to present a new issue.

Id.—Cost of Temporary Building—Expense of Setting Up and Removing Machinery.—It was proper to allow to plaintiff as damages for the nuisance the cost of the construction of the temporary building, and the expense of setting up the machinery therein, and of removing it therefrom into the permanent building, when completed.

Id.—Loss of Prospective Profits—Wrongful Interruption of Business—Evidence.—The rule that the loss of prospective profits of a business is not ordinarily to be allowed as damages does not apply where, by the wrongful act of another, a person is interrupted in carrying on a business which is established; and, in such case, evidence of the profits he was actually making is admissible.

Id.—Prevention of Loss—Recovery of Expense.—It being the duty of the plaintiff to prevent the loss of profits, so far as practicable, and he having prevented such loss by the erection of the temporary building, he is entitled to recover as damages all items of expense incurred in such prevention, and caused by reason of the delay in the erection of the permanent building.

Id.—Increased Price of Lumber—Expense for Watchmen.—It was proper to allow the plaintiff as damages the amount of increase in the price of lumber for the permanent building, owing to the delay in its erection, for which the defendant was responsible, and also the expense incurred in the necessary employment pf watchmen to guard and protect the new building during such delay.

Id.—Evidence—Occasion for Obstruction.—Evidence that other houses were situated on the lots of adjoining owners, and that this occasioned the obstruction of defendant’s building upon plaintiff’s lot, is inadmissible. That fact cannot excuse the defendant for the obstruction of plaintiff’s lot.