The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-20 00:00:00

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.

Mr. Justice Gestctss at this morning in the 'lace of
the Lord Chief Justice.

RIGLAND V. ♦RNOLD AND OTHERS,

This was an action for trespass and for injury sustained
In tonsequence of certain alterations being mule by direc-
lion of Mr. Arnold, which it was alleged had entirely de-
stroyed the premises in the Strand, called the White
Horse, bring then in possession of the plaintiff, and stand-
ing next the English Opera. House.
Mr. Setjeant Wttnt stated the case.

Elitabetit Wood, lives servant with Mr. Brigland; re-
members the shores put inside the house; recollects
!tree tet falling in the house which created great alarm, and
which made her mistress call out to her to take the child
out of the house, for she thought it was coming down—
remained only a few days after this in the house, then
went away with the child to Chelsea, for fear of the house
falling en thettv...--went back to the house in the Strand,
in' About a month afterwards,—the wall then that was
feciwg Charing-cross had fallen down. The men remained
stoiug something to the house until September. Saw Mr.
Rogers there giving some directions often. Knows Mr.
Arnold, having seen him in the court several times.
Never saw hitn giving directions to the men. Heard her
mister turf mistress complain of the workmen
uererat times to Mr. Outhwaite. Recollects when
k 'were taking down the wall and the roof, the
tc!itilly were acraid to go up or down stairs lest the house
'should fall; recollects in the beginning of October having
asked Mr. Outhwaite was he not going to finish the back
;met of the house, he said no, he would do no more to it.
The house 'aietts not tit to receive any of those persons who
were in the habit of going into the tap-room before. The
faintikbtre was greatly injured, being much broken. His
110.'Ster and mistress often complained to Mr. Outhwaite,
when he said he would make the house all right again.
Several other witnesses were examined, who stated that
they were in the habit of taking refreshment in the house
until the %Iteration made in July last.
Navel examined—ls an architect and surveyor.
Saw the White Horse about the middle of November.
there had been a new wall built, which did not extend
as far as the old wall, so that the staircase was altogether
exposed ; no hand-rail even to protect persons from falling
mat. The shores placed in the staircase to support the
roof were so much hi the way, that people could not well
pass them. There was a large cavity where the chimney
before stood. The roof is of the same extent as before, a
part of it is still open, and the main body of it is
changed in its form. The rooms indicated to }aim that
they were greatly injured by the wet coming in. The
ceilings were in a falling state, from being soaked with
the wet. The floors did not even p home to the wall,hav-
ism a space between them. There was nothing to prevent
the wet from coming through. Don't think the house is
now decently habitable.
Cross-examined—Did not study the Building Act much ;
believes if the rooms were finished the alteration'ot the
fire-places would make it much more comfortable.

Coles examined—Formerly kept the White Horse ;
Nigland paid three or four hundred pounds to him for
the house ; the furniture he saw appears to be in a ♦ery
wretched state now ; there is now no place for a person
to sit down there.

Crass-examined—Left the concern by supposing that
he could probably get a situation equally as good.
13e11 examined—ls an auctioneer and valuator ;
valued the premises in January, 1824 ; the furniture and
fixtures were worth 3541. 3s. ; they are now in a de-
p!orable state ; should suppose the furniture and fixtures
would be worth 1201. ; the fire-place and tap-room is not
non• built for a public house at all ; the house now is not
habitable.

Cross-examined—Values occasionally for brewers in
London public-houses.
This was the plaintiff's we.
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _

Mr. Serjeant STORKS: here addressed the Jury o❑ behalf
of the defendants. In the course of which he detailed with
great feeling the losses Mr. Arnold had then sustained by
a melancholy visitation of Providence, by reason of which
he had lost a very great fortune. He did not maintain this
for the purpose of working on the feelings of the Jury, for
he called upon them to give a verdict only according to the
evidence which would be laid before them for the defence.
It would be proved, that the plaintiff had frequently ap-
p'ied to have the house repaired to prevent it from falling,
which there could be no doubt would have happened, and
perhaps buried the plaintiff and his family in ruins were
it not for those very alterations for which the plaintiff now
shows his gratitude by making them the subject of the pre-
sent action ; it would also he proved that the repairs would
have been completed, hut that the plaintiff's wife pre-
vented them from doing so in October last, as they (he
supposed) then thought they might make it the subject
of a pretty little action against Mr. Arnold ; although
they had received notice to quit the premises last Christina.,
notwithstanding which they have remained still in possession.
The verdict was not returned when we went to Press.