The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-28 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE
and a Common Jury.)
STEVENS V. PERRY.

Sir F. POLLOCK (with whom was Mr. LEE) stated the
case. It was an action brought by the Messrs. Stevens,
gas fitters, to recover a sum of 221. 10s. Bd. for work and
labour done, and materials furnished, on the outside of the
Queen's Theatre, Tottenham-court-road. Most of the
Jury must be aware that the business of gas fitting had be-
come a very important and extensive one within the last 20
years, and he believed every Theatre in London was now
lighted by gas. The plaintiffs had been employed in the
month of Dcember, 1833, by Mr. Mayhew, the lessee of
the Queen's Theatre, to fit up the interior with gas, and
while so engaged, they were requested by Mr. Prentall,
who, it will be proved, acted as the agent of the defendant,
to fit up some gas lanterns in the front of the Theatre. Mr.
Perry was the ground landlord of the Theatre, and it was
his duty to attend to the fitting up of the exterior of the
building, being that part with which the public had more
immediately to do. The defence set up was, that Mr.
Perry did not order the work to be done, and, accordingly,
the usual ceremonial of serving a notice to produce the books
had been gone through. The books were in Court, and
were at the service of his Learned Friend. The Learned
Counsehthen read a letter from Prentall to the plaintiffs,
dated 23d of December, 1833, as follows :
" Sir,—Having seen Mr. Perry on Sunday, and stated to
him the arrangement about the five lanterns, he objects to it,
and will have three larger ones made, same size as the one you
had taken away, viz., 16 inches.
" Your's, " THOMAS PRENTALL."

The following witnesses were then examined :
Wm. George Warner.—ln December 1833 I was in the
employment of the plaintiffs, who are gas fitters, and was
at work in the Queen's Theatre, Tottenham Court-road ;
we were employed by Mr. Mayhew, the lessee of the thea-
tre, fitting up gas for the inside. I saw Mr. Prentall there,
who appeared to have the care of the theatre. I had been
previously employed to do work for the defendant. About
a week before Christmas, Prentall came to me and gave
me some instructions. On Christmas eve Prentall and the
defendant came to where witness was at work outside the
theatre, and defendant. asked, " how is this work of mine

getting on ?"
Mr. KELLY objected to any evidence being tendered of
what was said by Prentall, until it was proved that he was
an agent acting for the defendant.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE thought the evidence was ad-
missible valiat quantum. When the parties were toge-
ther, and the work was recognised by the defendant as his,
it must be assumed that he gave instructions to have it
done. He did not see how in the ordinary course of busi-
ness agency could be otherwise proved.
Examination resumed—Prentall on the previous Satur-
day told the plaintiffs in witness's presence that Mr. Perry
desired them to fit up some large lamps in the portico of the
theatre. The charges made in the account now handed
him are the usual and reasonable ones.

Noah Siddon—l am the subscribing witness to the con-
tract now handed me between the plaintiffs and Mr. May.
hew, dated 13th Dec., 1833. The contract is for work to
be done in the interior of the theatre. I delivered a sepa-
rate bill to Prentall for work done for Mr. Perry at the
theatre.

Thomas Taylor—Was employed as a carpenter at the
theatre. A man named Plucknett generally took charge of
the theatre for the defendant. Whenever it was let, Pren-
tall applied to the lessee for the situation of Master Car-
penter. Heard Mr. Perry say that Prentall had gone to
America, and that he had been altering bills—changing
oughts into sixes.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury for the defendant. The
Learned Counsel relied chiefly upon the fact that there was
no proof that Prentall was the agent of the defendant, or
was authorised by him to give any orders to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE was proceeding to sum up the
evidence, when the Jury interrupted him by saying that
they had made up their minds, and immediately returned a
verdict for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DAY

(Sittings in London.)
SOWERBY V. LEGGETT.

This was an action brought by the original landlord of a
house in Gloucester-place, New-road, against the lessee for
dilapidations. The lease was granted in the year 1815 for
twenty-one years, and had passed through several hands.
It terminated on the 24th June this year, when the house
was in the hands of Colonel Nixon. It was in very bad
repair, and the landlord sent in his claim to Mr. Leggett,
his immediate lessee. Both appointed a surveyor, but they
could not agree upon terms of meeting, and therefore both
surveyed the house separately. Mr. Mayhew, the plaintiff's
surveyor, estimated the necessary repairs at 82/. 4s. 10d, ;
while Mr. Moseley, on the other side, thought 321. 195..
sufficient. It was covenanted that the house should be
painted outside every three years, and inside within six
years of the determination of the lease. The plaintiff
claimed for the painting both inside and out, while the de-
fendant's surveyor allowed nothing. The defendant, how-
ever, failed in proving that any painting inside bad taken
place since 1827.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, advised the Jury to di-
vide the difference between the surveyors' estimates, and
they found for the plaintiff—Damages 601.