The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-07-10 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT,

YESTERDAY.

ARE CASIROS A " NIIIS.ANCE ?"—CURCHOD V. SMITH.—In
this case, John Henry Curchod,proprietor of the Queen's Hotel,
Lime-street, was plantiff, and Edward Smith, of No. 11, New-
ington, dancing-room proprietor, defendant. The claim was
for £5O, " for damages caused by a nuisance to the plantiff as
an hotel-keeper, by the defendant having kept a casino, and
having had music and dancing and assemblages of prostitutes
adjoining the plantiff's hotel for the last six months." The
damages were laid at £5O.

Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Mr. Snowball, appeared for the
plantiff, and Mr. Hime for the defendant.
Mr. Aspinall, in opening the case, stated, that the plantiff
paid £5OO per year for the building which he originallyoccupied
and £l6O per year for part of the adjoining building which he
also occupied, the defendant occupying the other part. The
hotel was immediately contiguous to the railway station, and
therefore in an eligible situation for business. Some little
time ago, a large building was erected adjoining the original
hotel, which the public were told was to be a freemason's hall—
o, great ceremony was gone through, and the first stone was
laid by one of the most moral and religious men in Liverpool,
the then Mayor, who would, he (Mr. Aspinall) thought, have
been very much shocked,if he had known what use the building
was to be put to. Something afterwards occurred by which
its original purpose, as a freemason's hall, was diverted. Mr.
Curchod had still the lower room of the new building, which
was, perhaps, the largest coffee-room in England, divided into
two parts, by a large staircase which led from the outside to
the story above, which was the dancing room. Mr. Curchod
at first occupied the whole of the new building, but after a
time he ceased to occupy the middle room, and continued to
be the tenant of the lower story, and also the bed-rooms
above. He left the intermediate room in the hands of the
landlord, who let it to a Mr, Woodhead for £l6O a year, for •
an exhibition of anatomical figures. That did not pay, and
the landlord made an arrangement with the present defendant,
who kept casinos in more places than one. It was now fre-
quented by prostitutes and persons of the lowest character,
and these assemblages were a complete nuisance, inasmuch
as they took place immediately contiguous to the thief en-
trance to the plaintiff's house. The dancing and noise were
complained of most seriously, and would probably have been
in some degree whatever the character of the persons was
who assembeled there for the purpose of dancing. The up-
roarious noise was most intolerable in the hotel, and had made
it impossible for plantiff to carry on his business, which must
be against the law, for no person could be allowed to carry on
his business in such a manner as to injure his neighbours.
The coffee-room had been rendered perfectly useless at night,
the lamps were frequently broken, and a great portion of the
ceiling had been shaken entirely away. Then the bed-rooms
adove the dancing-room were also rendered perfectly untena-
ble from the terrible noise going on underneath ; the same
nuisance applied more or less to the original rooms which Mr.
Curchod occupied in the hotel itself. In fact, the nuisance
was such, that if it could not be abated, the plantiff might,
perhaps, have to shut up his house altogether.
Mr. Hime, on behalf of the defendants took objection to Mr.
kspinall arguing that the plantiff -had been injured in his
ibtsiness, on the ground that the action was only stated to be
fbr a nuisance, and not for compensation for loss or damage.
His Honour seemed at first inclined to allow Mr. Aspinall
'to amend the wording of his summons, but after a legal argu-
'ment, it was determined that the case should proceed on the
question as to the nuisance alone,
Mr. Henry Curchod, the plaintiff, was then called, audstaterl
that he paid at the present time £6OO per annum for the
entire premises that be occupied. He formerly also c.coupied
the room in which the nuisance complained of took plaverand
paid his landlord V. 50 per annum rent, and one-third of any
profits he might rnake by-letting it for exhibition purpeses.
He had twelve bed rooms and four dressing rooms over the
dancing room kept by the defendant, and a coffee room•under
it. He had laid out £1509-in furnishing and fitting-up those
rooms. The defendant had told him that he Paid 414500 per
annum for the room 'he -occupied. In summer, the • dancing
usually commenced about-half-past nine o'clock, and in winter
about eight 'o'clock. -He found 70 or 80 persons, in the
room one night, •about three months ago, when -he went to
complain to Mr. Smithelout the plaster falling. -He thought
about 100 persons would attend there each night. He could
not use his bid rooms and coffee room while the-dancing was
going on. He had seen Mr. Smith on the matter, and told
him be should be obliged to 'proceed against him on account
of the nuisance. Mr. Smith replied that, if he did, he would
drive him (plaintiff) to London.
On being cross-examined by Mr. !lime, the plaintiff ad-
mitted that helad a-perfect knowledge, when•lfr. Smith took
the room, for what (purpose it was to be occupied. He also
once entertained a proposition that he (plaintiff) should supply
refreshments to the room, and have a communication re-opened
with his house; and admitted that he placed -a counter in it,
and leilt Mr. Smith a number of chairs. Ilethad had an inter-
view with Mr. 'Moorhouse, of London, the owner of the build-
ing, cm-the matter,,and the latter wished -him to give up all
the bed rooms over the casino. He had •offered to do that, if
Mr. Moorhouse would pay him what he hadlaid out on them.
Nothing came of the offer. He had also offcred to sell the de-
fendant 100 chairs at 4s. each, which was not accepted, but
that was not the: reason why he had brought this action
against him.

-Mraohn Westmoreland, joiner and buil/ter, was next called,
and stated that he was employed by the plantiff about two or
three'months ego to take up the floors of the bed-room imme-
diately over the dancing-room, and put down fifty bags of
sawdust and bags of ashes, under the flooring, with a view of
deadening the, sound of the music. It had not, however,
answered.
Mrs. Stockham; plaintiffs housekeeper, proved that, for the
lastlten weeks, she kad occupied one of-the bed-rooms over
the saloon, and it was quite impossible to get any rest while
tht, dancing was going on, which was usually the case till
twelve o'clock and after.

ids. aJsn P.51.V0

.111tharino
similar testimon7.
-Henry Murphy, Tenspector of Police,-deposed that he visited
the hall on the .18th.. and 19th of April, and found thirty or
forty women of the town, and several gentlemen there.
Music and dancingavere going on. He was there again on
the £3rd and 24th-of April, and found about the same number
there. These visits were made at ten, eleven, and up to
twelve o'clock, at which hour the place was generally closed.
He never found: it open after twelve.: He spoke to Mr. Smith,
and told him what ,kind of characters' the women were, and
that complaints had been made, and' proceedings would be
talren against him. Defendant replied, " Let them try: 1
am prepared. I. know the man newt door is complaining
against me, but it •isall because I weild not purchase the 100
chairs from him. Ile knew that respectable men's wives and
sisters will not come, but the women who come conduct
themselves properly.,..and I do all I can to keep the place
respectable.' George Philip Woolfe,:a waiter, proved that
.gentlemen would not remain in the .coffee-room after the
dancing began.
-Mr. Duckworth, architect of the building, deposed that he
advised Mr. Curchod to place the .saw-dust bags under the
bedroom floor, on account of the noise. Inspector O'Brien
gave evidence similar lo that of Inspector Murphy.
Mr. Hime then, on behalf of the defendant, submitted that
there was no case, no damage being named in the summons,
and:no special damage shown. He argued that it was not un-
lawful to have music and dancing, and that not a tittle of evi-
dence had been given on_the score of immorality.
His Honour thought -there was nothing proved as to the
nuisance being caused by prostitutes inside the rooms. The
same number of decent young women and young men dancing
there might have made the same noise. The defendant was
not liable for any noise they might make outside of his pre-
mises.
In the course of the case, Mr:Aspinall referred to the case
of " Van Saultorf v. Bahbid," in which an action was laid
for a .nuisance caused by the ringinc, of bells, at untimely
hours, at a Romish Convent at Clapham, London.
His Honour referred to this.and several other relevant cases,
in one-of which a boiler maker in this town was sued for a
nuisance, .and read cases to prove that.a person could recover
where a-neighbour's dog caused an annoyance either by day or
by night.
After the evidence had been gone -through, and the legal
arguments concluded, his Honour said-the,case was too im-
portant to: be hastily decided upon. if he was prepared to
hold that the proprietor of the Queen's Hotel was entitled to
recover at all, he thought it would be -merely a nominal
damage at any rate. He thought Mr. Aspinall had better
ttwa
hhma seo enpngrdne quite
present
eti
term
mte aacwttaiahossinen,
moe and ninsa
sdladpcpnalaimlopiedtpiri
rdf
ao
Irvitdeoor
tnth
aflohyriaf: dancing-roomwoi txtrh months.emthonerthmonths.
i I
wHainest
t
po rta frequentedne.e personsqn e ati
oont'
was,g oo (1 charactercoul
dtfyh
niosral
inneoilam:bu
:use
neighbour,
ofrh his
h
im-
portance. houset-
for music ancLdancing, to the injury
rendering himself liable to an action? On that -question he
would give his judgment on the 24th instant.

WHO SHILL -DECIDE WHEN (HORSE) DOG-MORS DIS-
AGREE P—PARRY -V. CLAREE.—This w a
as question of horse-
warranty. Plaintiff, a car-driver, bought from defendant a
bay mare, for which he paid £9. She was warranted to be
" sound, a good feeder, and a good worker." Plaintiff, on
purchasing her, noticed that she was a little lame in the off-
fore-foot; but he was assured that it was "nothing-at all."
He took the mare to Chester on one of the ragedays, and
found her speedily ".knocked up." He put a feed of oats
before her, but she would not touch it. A veterinary surgeon
afterwards examined her, and found that she had the glanders
and pbarcy. Plaintiff, ,therefore, wanted defendant to .take
her back again, but he would not. Plaintiff then procured a
certificate from a veterinary surgeon that she was incurable,
and dangerous to keep, and, having sent previous notice to
the defendant, had her destroyed. Defendant alleged that he
had a veterinary surgeon's opinion that the horse was quite
whole; but one of his own -witnesses, a coachman, admitted
that he had remonstrated with his master for taking the mare
back from Messrs. Busby, to whom he had sold her previous
to the plaintiff, and who returned her into his hands after
keeping her two or three days, because she was too slow. He
thought she might have contracted the disease while in their
stables. His Honour said he thought the plaintiff had
proved his case; but he adjourned Ms judgment until the next
Court in this month.

BIRTH.—On the Bth inst., the wife of Mr. John Lindsay, of
Upper Parliament-street, of a daughter.
BANKRUPTCY COXTRT, YESTERDAY.--Mr. Williams, late a
tailor and draper, inJames-street, opposite St.Oeorge's Church,
came up before Commissioner Perry on his last examination.
The case was adjourned for a month, in order that an amend-
ed balance sheet might be -filed.
RE GEORGE CLAUS.—On Saturday, at the Liverpool
Bankruptcy Court, before Mr. Commissioner Stevenson, Mr.
George Claus, of Crosby, a bankrupt, came up for judgment
on the question of an act of contempt towards the court, in
having torn up a search-warrant issued by his Honour. The
Commissioner, taking into consideration the state of excite-
ment in which the bankrupt was in at the time, the ample
apology he had offered, and the contrition he had expressed,
thought the justice of the case might be satisfied by directing
that the bankrupt be detained in the custoey of the messenger
until the rising of the court that day.
ASSAULTING A POLICE-OFFICER.—At the Police-court, on
Saturday, John Evans, and John, his son, living in a court in
Haigh-street, were charged with assaulting police-constable
139. On the previous evening the officer hearing a great dis-
turbance in the prisoners' house went in, and perceiving a
quarrel, was about to take the younger one into custody, when
the old one attempted a rescue. Another officer then came
in, and a struggle ensued, in the course of which 139 was
struck a severe blow on the head with a poker. It was pleaded
in mitigation of the father's offence, that an excess of paternal
feeling had urged him to commit an offence of which he would
not otherwise have been guilty. The old man was dischargede
but the younger was fined 0, or to be committed for thre,
months,