The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-03-13 00:00:00

—Tiiibeisiaine al kW Amigos lerminated a* 2 o'sgask.

WEYMOUTH.

COUNTY COURT, Trinummr.
(More E. Evuuerr Eq., Judie.)

The cause list contained 36_pleints, but the only
ease poseeseing any degree of interest, and which
occupied the court for several hours, was
Tat.sov Muria —This was a jury owe, and the
sets sought to be recovered was £l3 13e., being an
alleged balance of OS for a month's rent due in the
autumn of last year. Mr. Howard attended for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Arden for the defendant. In
support of the plaintiffs caw several witnesses were
willed, and from their evidence it appeared that on
the 17th of September last, Mrs. Christian, a servant
to Mr. Phillip Miles, of Bristol applied to Mrs. Tal-
bot, respecting the hiring of the Cestle-house, in
Belle Vus. The rent forth. whole house was £7 a
week, but Mrs. Christian wanted Mrs. Talbot to
provide other linen than that in the house, but Mrs.
Talbot refined =lees the house were taken for a
specific period. Mrs. Christian went to her mistress,
who had opine to Weymouth with the three children. 4
sad an returning again to Mrs. Talbot, agreed to '
take the bones for four weeks certain. They were
joined at the and of • week by Mr. Miles, and after
the family had remained there three days longer,
they found a bug, and on amount of that they left—
paying only £l4 71. The servant, who was bent for
the bill said that Mr. Talbot was very ill at the time,
and that she did not like to go to Mrs. Talbot to
trouble her, and that she therefore applied to Mies
Talbot, the stater, to make out the bilL She could
not read the bill, but Mils Talbot told her it was
14 guinea, for the fortnight, and 7s. for extras. Mr.
Miles wrote a cheque awl gave it and the bill to her,
and Miss Miles mid he had deducted 14e., which
was • week for the lodgings allowing the extras.
It was contended that Miss Mike was not an agent
in the matter, and that Mrs. Talbot had demanded
£2B for the moath's rent, which Mr. Miles had
refused to pay. All the witnesses said they had
never seen a bug in the house, and that they had
never heard of any complaints being made by any
other parties who had taken the lodgings. The
inerls, who lived there afterwards remained five
w and did not complain.
malr. Miles, the the defendant, was then celled, and
that ons he pre Mrs. Christian was
to hire a furnished house for the family by the
week. After his family had been at Weymouth a
week, he also came, and arrived about mid-day on
Saturday. On his arrival at Weymouth, he found 1
that his youngest child, a little girl about three sod:
a-half years Old, was so bitten about the face that
ahe could hardly see out of her eyes, and that she
had the appearance of having. had the =all pox, the
face being so swollen iiad indented. He had the
child stripped, and found that she was bitten all
over the body, and she was in a state which he feared
might proclaim fever. The child had slept with her
mister, a little older, in the same room as the nurse.
His two other children were also bitten, but not so
bad. He had the child removed on the following
night into the bedroom where he and his wife slept,
but she was as much tormented there, and on Mon-
day morning he told Mrs. Talbot of the cirouni-
steam, and asked her to send in her bill. They had
been there • week, and had entered on the second
week, and he said he would pay for a fortnight and
leave, ap he could not see his child stiffer so much.
Mrs. Talbot mid nothing to him about a month's
runt; she offered to take down the bedsteads and
provide fresh linen, but he told her that there were
bugs in more rooms than the one in question. He
saw a large number of than after they had been
killed, sod he kept them inthoding to show them to
Ma. Talbot, but he did not see her again. His
arrant brought him the bill, charging him 14

guineas for the two weeks, and 7s. for extra accom-
modation. He wrote a cheque for £l4 for a fort-
night, and 7a. for the extras, and wrote on the
which be mturned with the cheque, his reasons for
not paying guineas instead of pounds. He never
received the bill hack, althout,ll he wrote
for it when he received a lawyer's letter for this
additional amount, but the bill was in the mine
handwriting as the bill now in court. He was not
himself bitten, and he ditl not know that any others
were besides the three children. lie was perfectly
satisfied with the lodgmrs in every respect but in
that one thing. Indeed he had much better
accommodation there than he had where he after-
wards took his family to,
Capt. Robert Vandeleur, anear relative of the
defendant, who called on thefamily daily, corro-
borated he defendants's evidence respecting the
ap Cof the child. ratal:enour, in placing the ease before the jury,
said this ease resolved itself into three parts. The
first of these was as to the hiring. It had been
stated by the defendant that he gave his servant
instructions to hire the house only furs week, but
the witnesses for the plaintiff MI stated that the
hiring was for a month certain, and there was this
fact against the defendant, that after Mrs. Christian
knew that the house could nut be had on the con-
dition she wanted it, she went and saw her mistjess.
and their returned and took the house. He thought
therefore that the jury could not get rid of the
assumption, on the evidence before them, that the
house was taken for a month. And then came the
law of the case, which was the second part, and he
asked thorn to pay particular attention to it, to see
whether, in consequence of his child's being so
severely bitten, the original hiring could be dis-
annulled. According to a decision of Lord Tenterden,
it no doubt could, and subsequent decisions had
been in accordance therewith, and even Lord
Wensleydale, when on the Bench, decided, in Ifi43,
in a case similar to this at Brighton, that the
nuisance was a sufficient justification for giving up
the premises. But in the year following another
case of a similar nature came before him, when he
reviewed the decision of his predeoessor,and even his ,
own decision the previous year, and declared that
they had all decided erroneously. His Lordship
then ruled that the contract related to the state of
the parties contracting, and not to the condition of
the habitation; or in other words, that the contract
secured to the party hiring a guarantee that he
should not be turned out before the expiration of
his contract, but the law did not enable him, on
account of • nuisance, to terminate the hiring
previous to the termination of the contract There
was no doubt in this case, that the nuisance was
very great, the child was in a dreadful state, its
face was swollen, it could scarcely see oat of its
eyes, and its whole body was inflamed. But was ,
the nniaanoe such as would cancel the defendant's '
obligation to continue the contract? According to
the ruling of Lord Wensleydale, which was the
present state of the law, it was not. The other
children were but slightly inconvenienced, and the
other members of the household did not appear to
have been inconvenienced at all. This showed that
the house was fit for habitation. He confessed, that ,
were the other children in the condition of the
youngest, he would, in the face of the recent '
decisions hare directed the jury to return a verdict 1
for the plaintiff, and have sent such decision up for 1
argument in the superior courts. Betas it was, he
could not direct the jury to come to such a decision.
They were now come to the third part which was I
this: subsequent to the contract being made, was it
annulled by mutual consent? The evidence for the
plaintiff was that the bill for a fortnight's rent was
sent in by Miss Talbot. Had Mr. or Mrs. fralbot
sent in the bill, it would have been a very strong
inference that in consequence of what hail occurred
to the child, they accepted the terms offered by the ,
defendant, which was a fortnight's rent for a week I
and three days. But there was no evidence to
show that the bill did come from either of them, ,
and, as there was no proof that Miss Talbot was
their agent; whatever she did was not binding upon ,
them. On the other hand the defendant had told
them that on the Monday morning he told Mrs.
Talbot he could not stay—that he must leave in I
consequence of the child, and told her to send in her
bill, and it was brought to him by his (defendant's) ,
servant He also said that that bill was in the same
hand writing as the bill now produced for £l3 13e.
When be told her to send the bill, they were on
good terms. She offered to do what she could, and
nothing was mid about the house being hired for a
month, indeed the first time he had beard of the
month's hiring was sometime afterwards when the
1:13 13e. was demanded. It appeared then to him
that the only question for the jury to determine
was, whether in their opinion the original contract
was broken by mutual consent by the plaintiff in
the first instance, when the defendant asked for his
bill, by delivering one for a fortnight's rent only.
The jury then retired for upwards of an hour, and
on their return the foreman said they were not
and perhaps if his Honour would again read
agreed,
evidence, it would help to a solution
of the difficulty. This was done, and after a long
consultation again the foreman announced that they
were not agreed, nor were they likely to agree.
His Honour: If that is the case then, gentlemen
you are discharged, and if the plaintiff chooses to go
on with the case, he must call for another jury next
month.

Mr Attwood asked if they would have to be
boned to the evidence given to-day.
His Honour: I can my nothing about the evidence
next month. If you think proper to go on with the
case, perhaps Mr. Milee will produce Mrs. Christian
if she MA rebut your evidence.

WEIL/YAN CHAPZL —On Thursday evenings tea
meeting was held in the vestries belonging to the
Wesleyan Chapel. the primary object of which was
to raise a fund towards liquidating the debt on that
building. The tables were given by ladies who are
members of the congregation, and as a feeling of good•
natured rivalry seemed to exist as to who should
carry off the palm, we need hardly add that the good
things provided for the occasion were profuse and
excellent. A tarp number sat down to partake of
" the cup which chews but not inebriates," and the
usual harmony and good feeling with which these social
gatherings are umversally characterized, prevailed.
After tea, the company adjourned to the chapel when
an address was delivered by the Rev. R. Cooke, the
newly appointed minister of the circuit, on the recent
revival of religion in Newcastle and other places in
the North of Ragland. Mr. Cooke is evidently an
orator of no ordinary kind, and on the present occa-
sion he completely succeeded in rivetting the Wen.
tion sad carrying the feelings of his audience with
him. In Newcastle alone during the last quarter,
besides alargeaddition to all the other churches, there
WON added to the Wesleyan body alone 511 members
on trial, and the revival was spreading on all hands.
After the reverend gentleman had concluded, other
addresses were delivered, and the meeting concluded
by singing and prayer.

Liscrints.—On Wednesday a
eveningliert the Rev.
Lewis,
W. the minister of the Hops , delivered
an interesting lecture on the Literary istory of the
Bible," at the Literary mad Scientific institution. The
lecture room waa nearly filled with en attentive audi-
ence.