person's use of enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it was cited with approval and was further affirmed in other cases, such as Howard v. Walker, [1947] 2 All ER 197, and Newcastle-under Lyne Corporation v. Wolstanton Ltd., [1947] Ch. 92. In Buller v. Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd., [1940] 1 K.B. 399 injurious encroachment by the roots of a tree going underneath a house was treated to be an actionable nuisance. In Harrison v. Good, LR 11 Eq. 338 Becon V.C. observed that unless the nuisance complained of is one for which an indictment would lie, or an action could be maintained, it is no nuisance within the terms of the convenient which was being considered and further found that the establishment of a national school with playground for boys in the vicinity of a residential property would not be a nuisance, though it would be an annoyance. Lindley L.J. in Tod-Heatley v. Benham referring to those cases thought that the term appeared to be restrictively interrupted while Bowen L.J. doubted the correctness of the interpreted. The decision of the learned Lord Justice in Tod-Heatley v. Benhman, goes to show that the term “annoyance” is also of very side amplitude. Cotton, Lord Justice asked now what is the meaning of annoyance? The meaning is that which annoys, that which raises objection after and unpleasant feeling. Anything which raises an objection, in the minds of reasonable men may be an annoyance within the meaning of the covenant, while Bowen Lord Justice observed that it implies more, as it seems, then nuisance and further stated that it was clear that if annoyance and nuisance were put together in a convenient of the kind which was being considered, it should mean something different from each other. The learned Lord Justice further observed:
