The Express.
London, England, 1859-01-14 00:00:00

italu Enttlligtnce.

BAIL COURT.-JAY. 13.

Sittings at NW -iciaZl(l;(o.T. Erb and a

COCITHOTI Jury.)
DEAL E. ENIOHT....THE LAUNCH OE THE LEVIATHAN.
Mr. Beriasat Parry and Mr. Pearce appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Manors (or the defendant.
This wee an action arising out of the launch of the Levia-
than. The plaintiff is a greengrocer, carrying on business
at Itillwall, and the defendant, who now styles himself
a speculative builder,' wee formerly proprietor of a public-
house in the same neighbourhood, called the Ironmongers
Arms. It would appear that ou the 3rd of December 1857,
the plaintiff took his place upon a scaffolding erected on
vacant spot of ground, adjoiniog the defendant's house, and
which ground was the property of the defendant, (or the
purpose of viewing the proceedings connected with the
launch of the " big ship." The payment required of the
plaintiff fur securing to him this very advantageous poultice
was only 2d. Unfortunately, in the course ot the afterairest,
the stage way, and some 12 or 13 In ooaseqasace
of being precaMtated to the ground, ware mare or Ws In-
jured. Amongst others was the plaintiff, who bad his sables
dislocated, and the misdeed the calf of one leg auk brained,
whereby he was kept away from his bushwee for Wren
weeks, 'The plaintiff brought his action spinet the defendant
kir kingly warns:ins the scaffolding in gnostic& to be ma.
saaably nears.
The dame was. firstly, that although the ground on
which the scaffolding woe erected was the property of the
dahadans, dr well as the timber used in its csosiruction, the
erectice was the speculation of a man named George, who
bad since died, end who, with four or flys others, had hired
the timber from the defendant, sad obtained his permiaatoa
to use the ground, on consideration that he was to receive a
chars of the profits. In the second place, it was contended
for the defendant that, inasmuch as the laintiff clambered
cm the stage without paying anything, and was therefore
wrongfully there, he was not entitled to recover damages
tress the defendant.

As neigh* be tosegined, the evidence as to Knight's elude
`the undertaking wee very conflicting.
The jam however, found in favour of the plaintiff—
desaente,
Dadon the progress of the cue a point arose bearing upon
the cunehsetices of the 22nd section of the Common Lew
Protean hot of 1854, involving how far counael cosy die-
•eMt hh own whams.

Kr. Haman, meting on a statement taken doom to writing
by his client,,ealled as a women a smith to diaprove Knight's
fact connexion with the erectus of the eciaffoidisg. To the
surprise, however, of the Wien gentkiers, the withens
lesthoony was to the very caner, edwit—fer be proved •
thitherattos of Knight's that it was "to Ida these who wan
moped cm the erection of the eeslbid meet look fir pay-
ment." Theireepon counsel proposed to manna the miming
with ♦ View of shoe mg that his stationsot to the deteedest,
which had been committed to wrists', wee of • completony
opposite chancier.
Mr. thrjeant Pony objected to such a tine of entanistion
mama hia lordetdp wee of opinion that the yaws wee

Justice Erie rid be was premed to hold the wit aro
wham quad that particular declatstiun co the part of
Knight.

MAIN O. DECDNIY—INTORTANT TO HOTOZ-OWNIRS.
Mr. Berjeast Parry end Mr. T. Jones represented the
plaintiff ; Mr. °Termed and Mr. Tramp the detendent.
The plaintiff in this action is an estate sad home sent,
fed ding at Notting hill, end be sought to recover from the
dedeedist, Mrs. Deudnsy, a lady of ketone, the sous of
SOL, being half a year's rent for the hies of a furnished
hones, No. 2, Inverness-place, Bayswater, doe the 3d of last
11bar.
117defiendent haring paid a deposit in the hands of the
of 101., took pommies of the hones on the Bth of
1868, mad she so remained until the 3d of April,
when, in emeesquencs of the drainage of the house tieing
most impwhict, the supply of water most deficient, but the
allowance of bogs most abundant, she was forced for the
oaks almost of existence to retire from the premises. More-
over, the water-c'ooda were out of Order, and the plaintiff
had omitted to supply the house with certain articles—en
omission toationooot toe breach of a condition precedent to
the fulfilment of the defendant:it contract.

Them were undoubtedly bug, in the hones, as was &mil
proved by a witness who had been employed by the plaintiff to
scour one of the bedsteads. As rap the supply of WSW,
It was contended that that was a deficiency for which the
plaintitT was not liable, and that in all likelihood it arose from
the frosty state of the weather at the time. It was quite true
the deleodent might have been obliged to call in • doctor In
the early part of April ; but then she had resided in the West
Indio Is, Kee years, and any irritation of the alimentary
ousel or other inconveniences to which she might have been
subject, were naturally the consequence of a residence ,n •
hot Oast&

—ills cease deed on behalf of the defendant were, "Smith
end Marrikels" (9 11. and W.) "Hart and Windsor" (12 M.
sad W.), " Collier v. Barrow" (M. and W.), ands tam from
1 Moody sad Robinson.
Mr. Jamie* Erie said be was prepared to rule se folios's
—lf the plaintiff allowed • fair examination of the peen:deft,
sad made no Wm representations so as frandultently to de-
ceive the defendant into • bargain, and that in the agreemeat
between them there was no stipulation that the drains should
be perfectly sweet, and that there should be no bugs in the
house, his opinion WIWI that if the defendant took the house
she was bound by her agreement, although something might
turn up to make her bargain a dimgremble one. What he
should pat to the jury to decide was this—was there any-
thing about the house so noxious es to render it reasonably
uninhabitable. And In the consideration of that point the
jury must decide upon general principles, and not with
'Moreno@ to the susceptibilities or sensibilities of •
particular tenant, who might be perhaps over-semi-
the or over-requiring. With regard to the omission of
the plaintiff to supply certain small article*, he held him not
to ha precluded from the recovery of hie rent on that account,
es it woo open to the defendant to have brought as action
foe soy damage which she might hare consequently sue-
tahed. And as regarded the existence of bugs in a house im
bearing upon the question of its habitability, be apprehended
the difficulty must be solved by • reference to the quantity of
the bugs. He luineelf was once engaged in a case whereto a
witness dimovia to there not having been less than several
anion of the eggs of bugs discovered in the top hangings
as bedroom in • house at Brighton. (Laughter.) Un-
doubtedly the conclusion would be perfectly justifiable that
such a room was reasonably nndt for habitation. (Renewed
hislfre7ory, without leaving the hog, found for the plaintiff
for 501. 125., which, with the 101. deposited in his band.,
eovered the half-pais rent se clamed, the 12s. being allowed
se the value of some coals which were on the premises when
the defendant entered into possession.