That is the location of the silence-loving doctor’s residence in Sturges v. Bridgman, an oft-cited 19th Century nuisance law case involving noise and vibrations emanating from a confectioner’s kitchen. I wrote about this classic case in my latest paper “Coase’s Parables“, which was just published in the Mercer Law Review. (The late great English economist Ronald Coase had used this case to illustrate the reciprocal nature of harms.) As stated by the London judge who decided this immortal dispute, the facts are as follows:
“The plaintiff was a physician, who occupied as his professional residence the house No. 85 Wimpole street, the lease of which he purchased in 1865. Wimpole street is crossed at right angles by Wigmore street, and the plaintiff’s house, which was the second house from the corner where Wigmore street crosses, had at its rear a garden, at the end of which the plaintiff erected a consulting room in 1873. The defendant was a confectioner, who carried on business at 30 Wigmore street, and his kitchen was at the back of his house, having been erected on ground which was formerly a garden, and which abutted on the portion of the plaintiff’s garden on which he built the consulting-room. Thus one of the side walls of the consulting-room was the back wall of the defendant’s kitchen.”
Alas, the confectioner’s business on 30 Wigmore Street no longer exists, but earlier this week, I visited 85 Wimpole Street, and I was even able to step inside the doctor’s former residence. See pictures below:
prior probability 
I hope you had a great time across the “pond” as my Brit friend likes to say. My comment has nothing to do with this post but with today’s Supreme Court rulings — are we getting to the point where SC decisions now serve only to point out the internal INCONSISTENCIES of the US Constitution? And once we get to the inconsistency stage, then politics, as always will prevail!
The point being, that any attempt to craft an iron-clad, internally-consistent Constitution is subject to the same centrifugal forces as Godel’s Law — which I believe you have written a paper about that I have to read!
Today, the NYTimes published an article about how the Earth was essentially buffeted around by low-frequency gravitational space-time waves — and I would say the same applies to how we are jerked about by the ALWAYS vague/political interpretations of our Constitutional laws. No such thing as iron-clad law, just as no such thing as absolute space-time.
Excellent observations! I am considering writing up a sequel to my “Goedel’s Loophole” paper soon, so these observations are well-timed!
I am embarking on your paper now — having only read your blog post about it before. It brings to mind another inconsistency — or at least a reach too far — about Article 7: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” Now, consider carefully, Article 7 has no power UNTIL the Constitution in which it appears has been ratified — which begs the question how a constitution which has not been adopted can specify the terms of its own ratification. It seems to me that there had to have been an “extra-constitutional agreement” among the 13 states, perhaps unanimously, that 9 of them would be sufficient to ratify the document — in which case, this agreement should have properly been noted in the preamble, not included in the Constitution itself as an Article.
No doubt you’ve already been down this road!
thanks for reading my stuff!!
With respect to my comment (above? below?) about Article 7… It is a Godelian flaw in a way, as Article 7 claims a power it did not yet have when it was written. A president/potential dictator who had the support of the army could argue that Article 7 has nothing valid to say about the ratification process, therefore the “ratification” process that did take place was irrelevant even if every state legislature eventually agreed, therefore the Constitution has no legal authority, therefore “the facts on the ground” hold sway, i.e., the commander with the backing of the army can rule at will until he is deposed by force. Either that, or we revert to the Articles of Confederation? (Were they ever explicitly repealed?)
I will think about this and report back soon. In the meantime, I shout you out here: https://priorprobability.com/2023/07/05/blog-kings-2/