The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-12-21 00:00:00

'BIRCH v. HALL."

The above cause hat been Wei in London, aid was an
action to recover rent, payment for dilapidattons and the
vane of certain articles which bad been stolen from a house
by mawon of the anataionment of it by the defendant.
The plaintiff was the widow of an officer who fell in
the Indian Mutiny, and the defendant was also the
widow if a military officer: The former let to the
latter a furnished house called Shirley-place, at Shirley,
near Southampton, at a rent af £2OO a year. The
defendant had several large boxes containing
&c., in Scotland, where she had been residing, and
caused them to be taken by her servants to Shirley-
place
The defendant, her daughter, her son Captain Hall,
and some servants were called, and stated that the
place was infested with bugs. Miss Hall said the first
night she slept at Shirley-placeher face was bitten and
so diatigured that she was compelled to wear a coil the
following day out of doors. Captain Hall said he had
also been bitten by bugs, and himself caught two the
fist morning after his arrival; and the butler, an old
soldier, whose manner of giving his evidence created
much mirth, said that he made a collection of them,
and pinned 20 of them to a cupboard door in his pantry,
and that his collection had been made afterest least 20
had been killed; that there were bngs in each of the
bedrooms ; and that the mattresses were smeared over
with some ointment—a sort of blue ointment, which
was quite "grazy," and could be scraped off with the
nail.
The plaintiffs case was that she bad resided in the
house for three years, and not only was it not infested
with bugs, but was quice free from them during the
whole of that time, and this statement was corroborated
by the evidence of her servants. At the end ot the first
quarter the defendant tendered a quarter's rent and
the key, but the plaintiff declined to receive either,
and in the end the defendant abandoned the house,
which was subsequently entered by thieves, who broke
open a cabinet, and stole some blankets, &c., and in-
jured the premises, and the walls of the house became
damp, and the house otherwise got into a dilapidated
condition. For the rent due, the value of the things
stolen, and for dilapidations, the plaintiff claimed
1:52l 18s., and it was agreed that if the plaintiff ob-
tained a verdict the amount to be paid should be settled
by some person agreed upon by both sides.
It was suggested by the cross-examination of the de-
fendant's witnesses, that the boxes from Scotland had
been the means of introducing the bugs into Shirley-
place, but the defendant's butler swore there was not a
single bug in the house the family had occupied in
Scotland. Mrs. Hall stated that she sent fir Mr.
Hunt, the plaintiff's agent, and complained to him of
the dirty state of the house, and that he mid it was
in a worse condition than he had expected to fins! it,
and that it was not fit for gentlefolks to live in, or
words to that effect. Some persons who had been Mrs.
Hall's guests in Scotland stated that they hail seen no
bugs in the house there.
The Lord Chief Baron, in charging the jury, observed
that he was old enough to recollect a eignboatil
over a certain hence declaring that the proprietor
was "hug destroyer to his Majesty George IV."
Referring to the etaterneats of several of the wit-
nesses for the ddeace, to the effect that many of the bed-
steads and mattresses had been anointed by some greasy
bad smelling stuff, be said, it appeared to him somewhat
extraordinary, that if those articles were in that con-
dition on the list of March when the defendant took
possession of the house, it should have escaped her
noti e then, or tie notice of the agent on either side
employed to agree upon the iaveutocy ef the furniture
to be handed over to Mrs. Hall. As to the nuisance of
buys in a house, sonic of the judges of the land
had held the opinion that if there were but is few
bugs to be found here and there in a homes that
fact alone should not be taken as a justification for a
tenant vacating a hones on the ground of its being unim
habitable. On the other hand it has been ruled by the
judicial authorities that in the case of a house being
largely infested with those noxious insects the tenant
was fully justified in breaking his engagement for its
occupation, and in removing from it as being unin-
habitable. It was for the jury to say whether first,
the plea of the defendant that there were bugs in the
house in question was made cut ; and next, if it were
PO made out, whether the quantity of those insects
was such as to justify the breaking of the engagement.
The Jury, after a few minutes consideration, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff. The question of
damages referred.