The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 10.

(Sitting at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before the
LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
BATE!' V. WATSON AND OTHERS.

This action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for an alleged obstruction of light and air,
occasioned to the plaintiff's premises by the erection
of a very elegant building in Pall-mall (at the corner
of George-street, St. James's•square), for the use of
the Army and Navy Club, of which the defendants
are the trustees. The damages were laid at 5001.
Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Wells appeared
for the plaintiff, and Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr.
Peacock for the defendants.

The plaintiff it appeared carried on the business of
a tailor at 42, Pall-mall, and was also in the habit of
letting out the upper part of the house to lodgers
during the fashionable season in London. He
had formerly occupied No. 38, which he
sold to the club in order to enable them
to erect their mansion, and being desirous
to continue his business in the same vicinity, he
became the purchaser of a lease for twenty-one
years of No. 42, which previously belonged to a
neighbour named Tattersall. The plaintiff put the
premises
upon them.
sesint
Soonhoroughafterrepair,
th
ande h
spent
of the eh
eirlitinaconsideralbule
sum
commenced the plaintiff happened to go to Glasgow,
and on his return, two or three months
afterwards, he found that the light behind
the house, which was before free and
uninterrupted, had been diminished so much m to
render the lower rooms almost useless. Applications
were made to the club to have this remedied, but
without avail, and the consequence was that he had
bean compelled to apply to a jury for compensation.
Several witnesses were called for the plaintiff, and
they agreed in stating that the effect of the erection
had been to greatly diminish the light in the
rooms, one saying that the back parlour was so dark
that he could scarcely find the way to his mouth at
dinner, and another that he was unable to distinguish
leaders from advertisements in a newspaper unless he
stood close to the window.

The defence was that the portion of the building
complained of had been erected with the entire
sanction of the plaintiff, and on the understanding
that if there should be any diminution of light, it
would be a matter of no consequence to him, and it
was further alleged that there was no actual inter-
ference with the ordinary rays of light, and that, in-
stead of obstructing the free progress of air, a portion
of a building which previously existed had been
pulled down, and given the plaintiff's
house the benefit of the breezes from
the Green Park and the south-west. The
defendants asserted likewise that, having re-
ceived a large sum of money, viz. 3,8001., to quit
one set of premises, it was neither fair nor just for
the plaintiff to obtain the possession of another house
contiguous to the club, in order to give a colour for
a further claim to compensation.
Several witnesses were also called on the part of
the defendants, and they gave it as their opinion
that so far from the plaintiff being injured by the
erection, he had been benefited by an additional
quantity of air, which was admitted by a narrow
passage that had been thrown open by the defendants,
but only one of these witnesses had been inside the
plaintiff's house to see the effect produced, as far as
regarded light.
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up the evidence.
The jury retired.
In the course of the trial, one of the jury expressed
a wish to be allowed to visit the premises, as from
the contradictory nature of the evidence it was im-
possible to know what was the real injury sustained
by the erection, but the Chief Baron said he could
not give his sanction to such a course without
the consent of both parties. He was there,
he observed, to try the legal part of the
case, and as that was the last day of the We3tminster
sittings, it would be highly_ inconvenient to allow the
jury to leave, as the Court must remain unoccupied
until their return.

The jury having been absent for upwards of two
hours, sent to know whether, as there wr,s not the
most remote chance of their arriving at a verdict,
they might not come into court to be discharged
without giving a verdict ?
Mr. Pollock, the Marshal, in the absence of the
Lord Chief Baron, who had quitted by the consent of
all parties, said that course could not be adopted.