The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-01-15
WHERE GHOSTS
VENTURE IN LAW

no account OF ghosts. II q tenant
psrsuades himself that his house h =
haunted and leaves It In consequence
before the determination Of his tom
ancy the law will not relieve him Of
the obligation to pay rent for tho
remainder OF the uncom pleted term.
So much was decided at the Wands-
worth county court on Monday. II
appeared that the defendant took q
house in Cathies-road, BALKAN, on 4
yearly tenancy. But he Quilted Il
before the end OF tenancy and dee
clined to pay. the rent which was
due, alleging that the house WAS
haunted in manner so disturbing
to the nerves Of his household that
he could not live In 1t. The facts. II
esta biished, were certainly startling
enough. but apparently no attempt
was made to establish them beyond
the production of two letters writ
ten to the plaintiffs solicitor by tho
defendants wife, in which she stated
that It was impossible to live in
this house. 1t being haunted by an
"old gray-headed man." All the
bedrooms were alike The noises in
could sleep in them. big bangs
were heard at the head OF the bed
stcads. numbering sleep. One Of tho
defendants daughters had her face
slapped. Brass rails on one occa-
sion were flung across the room.
There were gatherings up and down
stairs. There were strange adven-
lures with a dog. which whined and
was restless out Of doors. One night
he was let loose, the back door was
mvsteriously opened and the dog was
admitted into the house. Servants
would not live in the house. The
gas had to he lighted at nIghtfail
and kept burning till daylight. Tho
snadows or man and woman had
had been something dreadfuI'-as
son. and one the whole the expert
eiices Of the tenant and his family
ha dbeen something dreadfur'-as
indeed they must have been II thia
narrowing story was trus,
But was 1t true? Strangely enough
the distracted victims of these ghosts
ana shadows. these bangings. slap-
pings. pattering, fiinging Of brass rails,
and openings OF the back doors, said
nothing whatever about their troubles
TO any OF their neighbors. They just
left the house-'gave up possession
Of 1t, as the defendants wife pleas.
antly put it--and went to live else
where. Having giving up possess
sion" very much in the manner which
among people who do such things Is.
we believe, known as "a moonlight
nirting, they declined to pay any
more rent. They seem to have thought
that for house so woefully be-
wftched no one could be expected to
pay any rent. any covenant to the
contrary notwithstanding. But the
judge very quickly undecided them,
He stated hluntly that plea of
ghosts could not be successful
reason for not paying the rent, and
accordingly he gave a verdict against
the defendant Did he believe the
story? We should conjecture that no
did not and indeed we know no
reason why he should. There was no
real evidence for II. nothing but the
uncorroborated statements Of the de-
PENDANTS wife made in letters to tho
plaintiffs solicitor and produced by
him In court. But whether the Judge
believed the story or not, II 10 clear
that he held that 10 long as II amount
ed to mere allegation that the house
was haunted 1t could not be accepted
as valid defense. The plea was
void alb initio.. The extstence OF
ghosts not being recognized by the
law, no pranks alleged to have been
played by them can be held to justify
the breach Of specific covenant
Ghosts, In fact. are not a vera causA
in the eye Of the law. IL the annoy
the defendant to render the house un-
f1t for habitation could have been
shown by irrefrag1ble evidence to
have actually taken place, even then
1t would seem that the attribution
of them to the sole agency of ghosts
| would have vitiated the defendants
| case. The defendant might just AZ
| we'll have alleged that the annoy
ances he complained Of were due to
- - S~Y~
the bishop Of Rum-ti-foo. or to any
other person or agency not recognize
ed by the law as existing nor proved
to the satisfaction Of the law to exist
The court could not be expected
to 60 into the question of the exis-
tence OF ghosts In general, nor OF
the existence of particular ghosts in
the house In question. least Of all OF
their playing in that the house FRANKS
attributed to them by the defendant.
1t IL often hard enough for courts
to extract the truth out Of conflicting
evidence even when nothing super
natural or abnormal IL alleged. But
IL the court were TO be required to
determine the limits Of the super
natural We should have to call q
Bergson or a Balfour into Judgment.
and even then we should probably get
mo forrarder."
Nevertheless the broad principle
that the alleged agency Of ghoats II
no defense In law Tor the breach Of a
specific covenant Of tenancy might
easily be turned into = very powerful
organon for the judicial investigation
Of many a so-called ghost story. We
have all heard stories some OF them
apparently very well authenticated. OF
ghosts that have played pranks which
have rendered the occupation OF
houses affected by them 20 disa8ree-
able as to induce the tenants to leave
them. Now, to plead ghosts IN such
q case u eiearly no Tesnady tn .]aw- For (
annoyance the tenant may have suf-
fered, and no defense for any breach
Of tenancy no may In consequence
have committed. But Il. leaving
ghosts out Of the question altogethsr.
the tenant were to allege, and bring
satisfactory evidence to prove. that
certain occurrences IN the house were
In - the nature of continuous
nuisance. and A. such -1niuatcal to his
quiet possession OF r. we hardly see
how any court OF law to which he
appealed could decline to take cog
nisance Of the facts alleged. The
( taria mt HAekInH. relief ON ty1i1 gf0Nn6