The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-22 00:00:00

DEFICTIVE nrE.

This we. an action to recover damages for the lose and
annoyance which the plaintiff had suffered in consequence
of defects in a pipe of the defendants', end 251. was paid
into court, so that the only question was whether this
amount wes sufficient to compensate the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjuot Parry and Mr. Robinson appeared for the
plaintiff. and Mr. Floyd], Q.C., Mr. Purim, and Mr. Edward
Bosley for the defendant..
The plaintiff was a hay salesman, carrying on business at
46, Ildthank-street, and also at Old Wharf, Abingdon-
street. The defendants supplied that neighbourhood with
gas, and they had • pipe passing along the road which was
used for the conveyance of ammoniacal liquor from their
works to covered barges on the Thames, which were em-
ployed to carry it away. For nine or ten months preceding
February last the plaintiff and his family suffered annoy-
ance in consequence of foul water coming under altel
ooa-
aionally over the floor of the kitchen of his house in Mil.
bulemtreet. The nuisance got to such a head that
thousands of pails of water and mud, which emitted the
moat intolerable odours, were carried from the basement
of the house, and the nuisance got worse instead
of better. In February it was discovered that
there was a leak in the pipe which carried away the
gas refuse, and there was ito doubt that this foul matter
had percolated through the earth into the lineament of the
plaintiff's hones. One of the things which wu present in
large quantities in the filth was aulphuretted hydrogen, and
Dr. Letheby, who bad analysed • bottle of water taken from
below the floor of the kitchen, foiled it to consist chiefly of
ammooiacal liquor. The facts having been brought to the
knowledge of the defendants they mended their pips, sod
did all that was necessary to remedy the evil. The plain-
tiff's counsel, in concluding his statement, said that the
plaintiff asked damages foi the lose of business, for the cost
of removing his family to another habitation, for some re-
pairs which he had had to do, and also for the personal in-
convenience he bad suffered; sod so far from 251. being
enough to compensate him, be (the counsel) believed that
it would be shown that his damage was not less than 2uot.
For the defence it was said that for nearly the whole of
the time it was nothing but Thames water which bad got
into the plaintiff's house ; that no complaint was made of
gas refuse being there until the 16th of February, aid that
within five days from that time the pipe was repaired and
the ultimo:ice stopped. It was believed that the leak arose
from the pipe having been broken by frost.
The jury, without hearing the case to the end, espieseed
their opinion that the first damage from the leakage of gas
water occurred on the 16th of February, and that the sum
paid into court wu sufficient.
Verdict for the defendants.
SECOND COURT.

- -
Sittinp at Nisi Prius in Londuo.—(Befons Mr. Justine
WWI* and • Special Jury.)
YINING SPECLIII.. JUBTMLN.

- -
Is the following case only three out of the twenty-four
spacial jurymen summoned answered to their namm when
railed, and his lordship tined the absentee* 51. each. adding
that they would bare an opportunity of stating any excuse
which might exist for their absence.