Judge to hear case of the cock that crowed too much

LEARNED COUNSEL will meet in Taunton, Somerset, this week to argue over the fate of Corky, the cock who crowed too much. Corky was silenced last year by a noise abatement order and now a court action for nuisance is being brought against his owner.

The argument over the cock, which has divided the hamlet of Stoke, near Hartland in north Devon, began 18 months ago when Margery Johns installed Corky in the hen run in her garden. Corky disturbed John Ritchings, who lives next door by crowing regularly at 5am, or earlier.

Mr Ritchings asked Mrs Johns to move Corky, pointing out that there was no need for the hen run, or at least the cock, to be located so near to his bedroom window. But they were unable to agree and so Mr Ritchings called in Torridge District Council, and obtained decibel readings of the cock's chorus.

The council's environmental health officer recorded the bird on 23 September last year, starting his observations at 4.49am. The first crow came 18 minutes later at 5.07am, followed by a vigorous burst of 23 crows in the next five minutes. Then there were 25 crows in the next 48 minutes up to 6am, increasing to greater intensity with 42 crows between 6am and 6.30am.

According to Stephen Peliza, an acoustic expert employed by Mr Ritchings, the noise in his bedroom amounted to 39 decibels, 32 decibels above the background level, enough to be 'extremely disturbing and annoying'. The crowing was 10 decibels greater than the sound made by singing birds and bleating sheep. Mr Peliza concluded that the extremely high level of the crowings, combined with their irregular frequency, did cause a nuisance.

However, Clifford and Theresa Tithicote, who live in a house on the other side of the hen run and equally close, say they were never disturbed by Corky's crows. Mr Tithicote said: 'This should all be settled over the garden wall . . . It need never have escalated in this way.'

Mrs Johns appealed against the noise abatement order on Corky, which was dismissed in the magistrates' court last May. In the meantime, Mr Ritchings took out an injunction to prevent Corky being kept beneath his bedroom window. And so Corky was banished to Hartland Abbey, home of Lady Stucley, where he has been living with her peacocks - which can be even noisier than cocks. 'If you come to live in the country you have to expect country noises,' said Lady Stucley, whose family has suffered the sound of peacocks since at least the 16th century.

Mr Ritchings rejects the suggestion that he is a townie, unused to country life. Although born in the town, he has lived for many years in the country. He equally rejects any suggestion that he wanted the bird to be destroyed.

In 1988, Mr Ritchings successfully opposed planning permission, which had been requested by the Stucley estate, for three houses to be built on the field behind his house. He had the support of many other residents at that time, but he believes he upset the Stucleys who employ a number of local people on the estate.

Sir Hugh Stucley, heir to the estate, is not anxious to be involved in the dispute. 'Really this is a ridiculous situation in a very small hamlet. I am keeping well out of it. Tenants don't need my permission to keep hens. I'll talk to you about set-aside - that is vital to the future of the countryside - but not about this.'

Mr Ritchings fears that if he loses the case, which is due to heard at the county court in Taunton on Thursday and Friday, he could be almost encircled by cocks.

Mrs Johns is equally determined not to give up. 'I cannot afford this case. If he was an ordinary man I would have got rid of the cock, but the council became involved and now it has all gone too far,' she said.

(Photograph and graphic omitted)