The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 1.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
GRANVILLE V. PUGH. —THE BUG NUISANCE.
This was an action to recover 42/. for 5 weeks'
rent of a furnished house, No. 1, Curzon-street ;
and the defence was that the house, iu consequence
of being infested with bugs, was unfit for habitation.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Gibbons ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and
Mr. Dowtleswell for the defendant.
Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff was a physician of celebrity in England
and other parts of Europe, and the defendant was
a gentleman of large fortune, and M.P. for Mont-
gomery Burghs, in Wales. The doctor was in the
habit of visiting the German watering places pro-
fessionally, and during his absence he let his house
furnished. Last year he let his house to Mr.
Pugh for five weeks from the 18th June. The
premises were new, having been rebuilt six years
ago, and the plaintiff, being particularly clean in
his household affairs, felt somewhat hurt at the
imputation which had been cast upon his house by
the defendant. The defence was that the house was
so infested with bugs as to heunfit for habitation, but
the fact was that some 12 or 13 bugs had been caught
by Mr. Pugh's servants, and a Welsh cook fresh
from the Welsh mountains had been fastened upon
and bitten by these animals. Mrs. Push had, how-
ever, previously raised the objection that the house
was so small that you could "not swing a cat in it."
(A laugh.) They were of course aware what a bug
Was, but he had referred to Linnaeus and found
that there were nine kinds of bugs. Two kinds were
the cimex corodiae and the cimex lecturarius ; but
gentlemen at the bar could give some information
to Linnaeus, by adding another kind, the cimex
Templarius, or Temple bug. (Loud laughter.)
The Chief Justice said he, as an old bencher,
must protest against that ; it was casting a serious
imputation upon the Temple. (A. laugh.)
Mr. James, after some further rematks, detailed
the' evidence which be should produce, and conclu-
ded by suggesting that the probability was that Mr.
Pugh's servants had themselves brought the bugs
which had annoyed them into the house.
Evidence was then given as to the batting of the
house on June 18. On the 19th Mr. Pugh com-
plained of the bugs, but consented to stay another
night. On the 20th he left. As to the house having
been infested with bugs, Dr. Granville, Mrs. Gran-
ville, Miss Granville, and the servants said that
they had never before heard any complaints of bugs
being in the house, nor was it likely there should
be any, as every precaution in the way of cleanliness
was taken. Miss Grauville had once found one on
a curtain which had just come from the wash, but
t!lat one was destroyed. The cook had once found
one on the coachman's coat, but had put in the
fire. (A. laugh.)
3fr.James--As cook, she roasted him. (A laugh.)
Further evidence was given that after Mr. Pugh
went into the house it had been examined by Mr.
Langridge, clerk to Mr. Lahee, the house-agent in
Bond-street. He was shown 12 or 14 bugs in a
basin, but he found none alive. A day or two after-
wards he found one under a pillow on the bed on
which Miss Granville used to sleep. After Mr.
Pugh left, the place was again examined by Mr.
Chapman, an upholsterer in Sloane-street, who
found ten bugs in all in various rooms in the house.
For the defence Mr. Pugh himself and several of
his servants were called. It was stated that Captain
Pugh, the defendant's son, went to bed on the night
of the 18th, but got up at two o'clock and went
into his father's room for a light, saying that he
could not sleep for bugs. He refused to sleep in
the house the next night. The cook was so bitten
that she was nearly blinded, and the housemaid was
badly bitten on the arms and neck. On the second
night they slept where Captain Pugh had slept the
previous night, and were again bitten. In the
morning they complained, and said they would
leave the service rather than sleep there again.
They caught ten bugs in the room in which they
slept the first night. The coachman had also been
bitten. They all declared that they had never seen
or heard of a bug in Mr. Pugh's house in Wales,
so that they could not have brought them with
them. The housemaid had never seen a bug any-
where until she found one in the house in Curzon-
street.

The Chief Justice summed up, and drew the at-
tantion of the jury to the principal points in the evi-
dence. He intimated his opinion that it was not
probable that the bugs had been brought to the
house by Mr. Pugh's servants, but must. have been
there before. The question in the cause, however,
was whether the house was so infested with bugs
as to be unfit for habitation.
The jury at once found a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Nisi Prizes sittings after term, at Westminster.—
Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Common
Jury.)

BALL V. FEATHERSTONE.—A PERTINACIOUS JUDGI
AND A PERSEVERING QUEEN'S COV.NSEL.—A SCENE
IN COWRT.
Mr. Edwin James, Q. C., and Mr. Hawkins were
counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. M. Chambers,
Q. C., and Mr. Petersdorf, appeared for the de-
fendant.
The action was brought on a bill of exchange for
65/., drawn by the defendant, accepted by one
Richardson, and endorsed to the plaintiff. The de-
fendant pleaded that the bill was fraudulently ob-
tained from him without consideration.
Mr. Featherstone is the landlord of a public-
house in Red Lion-street, Holborn, and from his
evidence it appeared that the bill in question, which
was dated Dec. 22, 1856, anddrawn at two months,
was obtained from him by one Wallis to got dis-
counted, and that Wallis had never givm him any
of the proceeds of it.
Mr. Chambers relied on this as sufficient indica-
tion of fraud to put the plaintiff on proof of consi-
deration.
Mr. James submitted there was no case on the
part of the defendant calling on the plaintiff for an
answer.
The Chief Baron thought that if the plaintiff
could carry it a step further, it might save the
trouble of his coming there again.
Mr. James requested t) have his objection noted.
The Chief Baron assented.
The follo wing witnesses were called for the plain-
tiff in examination of the transaadon.
Mr. Apps, plaiutitT's attorney, said Mr. Wallis
called upon tint on the 22,1 Dec., 1853, and rro-
duecd tee bill of exchange for 651. Wa'lis stated
that ho had asked Mr. Featherstone to lend him
some money. Mr. Featherstone said be could not
do that, but that if a bill was of any use to him there
wss a sum of 651. duo by Richardson, and ho would
draw on Richardson for the amount, and let him
(Wallis) have the bill. Witness told Wallis he would
see Mr. Day, a military equipage m ticcr in the
Strand, and try to get the bill discounted. Wallis
said he was getting up a company and was very
ranch pressed for money, and asked for the loan of
25/. At that time Wallis owed witness 5/ , which
had been advanced by cheque on 20th Dec., and
witness then gave Wallis a cheque for 24/. 10s., and
2s. Gd. in silver, retaining 7s. 6d. as a week's inte-
rest on the bill. A memorandum, to the effect that
Wallis had deposited defendant's bill, and received
301. on account of it, that it was to be chargeable
with 7s. Gd. a week interest until redeemed, and
that if not redeemed within a week, it might be
negociated, was signed by Wallis, and now pro-
duced. Witness wet round to Featherstone's the
same evening, but he was out, and he did not see
him. He saw Mr. Day., and Mr. Day consented to
discount the bill. Wallis called again on the 24th
Dec. He then owed 201. 7s. 6d. to witness, and
witness gave a cheque for 26/. 2s. 6d. as the balance
of the 1011, less 61. 10s. discount.
The Chief Baron—That was exactly is. per 1/.
per month.
Witness assented. Mr. Day's father was living
when the bill became due, and he had an objection
to all bills of exchange, whether commercial or
otherwise. Mr. Day, jun., had not the same ob-
jection ; but, not wishing his father to know that
100 had any money invested upon bills, be obtained
Hall's leave to use his name in the action. -Hall
was witness's brother-in-law, and clerk to draughts-
men of railway plans in Great George-street. Wit-
-1103/1 had made great efforts to obtain the presence
bf Wallis.
Oross-examined by Mr. Chambers—Hall never
_Savaa any consideration for the bill. His name
W merely a substitute for Day's. Witness got
29/. 55. on the 24th Dec.. from Day, a on the 9th
J au. , andlOt.liegeuoewfea Day. On the 14th Jan. Day
gave him a ch
otrhe9l. 55., which made up the
balance of 58/. 10s consideration for the bill.
Mr, Day corroborated r. Awes' evidence as far
as he was concerned, and gave the same reason for
the use of Hall's name.
In cross-examination, he said he had discounted
a few bills through Apps. He had not bronolitany
action on them. He believed he had never been
good enough to bring
actions against. All Specu-
lators were not fortunate, and ho had lost about
2001. by bills. He preferred losing his
money to
bringing an action and having his name made
public.
Mr. James observed that he might do a large dis-
count business on those terms.
Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Apps applied to him to
allow his name to be used, and as he had known
Mr. Day for many years, he allowed
A banker's clerk proved the cashing Apps'
cheques to Wallis.
Mr.
James was summing up the case for the
plaintiff, when
The Chief Baron intimated that the defendant
had no cese

I Mr. M. Chambers—l should like to address the
' jury, my lord.
The Chief Baron—There is really nothing to go
to the jury. I thought it better to inquire further
into the plaintiff's cacso, rather than for him to have
to come down again.
Mr. M. Chambers—That is the reason, my lord,
I wish to address the jury, to prevent the necessity
of the plaintiff coming again.
The Chief Baron—ln point of law the plaintiff
was not bound to give any answer to the defend-
i ant's case.

r Mr. M. Chambers—Does your lordship rule that
I have no right to address the jury ?
The Chief Baron—l rule that the defendant's case
does not call for any answer.
Mr. M. Chambers—Wi.h the greatest desire to
submit to your lordship, permit me to suggest that
I have a right to address the jury, because if I am
not allowed, I may go to the whole court on the
ground that your lordship has taken from the de-
fendant's counsel the privilege of stating the case to
the jury.
Mr. James—You did state your case.
Mr. M. Chambers—Mr. James has called wit-
nesies, and what I propose to do is to show from
those witnesses in addition to my own, what is the
case for the defendant.
The Chief Baron—At the time when Mr. James
interposed, I thought there was no evidence to go to
the jury. My opinion is the same now as it was then,
that you have made no case, and therefore I shall
direct a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers—l submit that the plaintiff's
witnesses have made his case worse than it was
before.

The Chief Baron—So you may, and I dare say
you think so.

Mr. M. Chambers—Your lordship is not trying
the facts. I say that as the plaintiff's witnesses
have been heard, the defendant has a right to have
their testimony submitted to the jury.
The Chief Baron—l bear what you s ty. I have
expressed my opinion already, and I rule again
that you have given no evidence calling for an
answer ' • and that being so, the plaintiff is entitled
to a verdict.

Mr. M. Chambers—May I ask, my lord, if all
the evidence given on the part of the plaintiff is to
be struck out ?

The Chief Baron—Yes, it may be struck out.
Mr. M. Chambers—l do not consent to have it
struck out. I claim the right to address the jury
upon it. _

The Chief Baron—And I do not admit your right.
Mr. M. Chambers—Will your lordship allow me
to refer you to the last statute, which declares the
right of counsel who appears for defendant or plain-
tiff, to address the jury after his antagonist's wit-
nes,es have been heard ?

The Chief Baron—You seem resolved, Mr.
Chambers, that we shall save no time.
Mr. M. Chambers—No time, my lord, is too long
to do justice to the parties.
The Chief Baron—l believe lam doing justice.
(To the jury)—l do not think the defendant has
proved sufficient to call for any answer, and your
verdict must be for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 671.
Mr. M. Chambers—Your lordship will reserve
leave and stay execution. The money is in court.
The Chief Baron—Oh, certainly.
Mr. James—You can move on the statute.
Mr. M. Chambers—Yes, Mr. James, I shall
move on the statute.
The next case was then called.