Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-23T00:00:00

ntms was an action on the case brought by ?ir. UguYvy a gentle. man residing in the parish of Sunburv, for a nuisance, whereby he swas annoyed in the possession of hia house and premises. It appeared from the evidence of Charles Sheers, a man in AIr. Ogilvy's service, that Mlr. Collins occupied a farm which lay oppo- site to his master's house, the highway running between them. AMr. Collins raised a great number of peas or the London imarket. and in the season, which lasted two or three months, brought from 20 to 30 trampers from distant parts, to pick the peas. These persons were lodged in a barn directly opposite to Mlr. Ogilvy's house, and an. noyed him in various ways. They were in the habit of kindling large fires of green wood to dress their food, which, when the wind blew in a westerly direction, rendered the front rooms of the house uncomfartalle by smoke and offensive vapcurs. Their conversation was loud, and ofen of a nature unsuited to female ears; their ha- bita were uncleanly; and their whole establishment unprovided with suitableaccommnodations, and extremely disagreeable to the inmnates of Mlr. Ogilvy's house. The LORD C;lrEs JusrrcExW interposed and said, he supposed prevention, and not compensation, was the obect of the plailtiff. The ATTORn,-ET-GExERAL assented, and observed that the ac- tion, wbichhad been commenced in 1822, had been suspended to give the defendant an opportunity of abating the nuisance; but he had persisted and comrelled the plaintiff to bring the cause into Court. .Ur. Ogiifv was, however, now ready to take a verdict for nominal datnages, the defendant entering into a rule to discontinue lodging his labourers in the barn. Mr. GASELEE, for the defendant, objected to give the verdict, alleging that tbe nuisance, if any, had been removed, and contending that it. poino Of law no nuisance had been committed. MNlr. Collins was unable to procure a sufficient number of labourers for his pur- p ,se in the pea-season, and therefore hired these strangers; he gave onem the barn to lodge in and fuel to burn, but he had no control ,nver their conduct, for wbich they alone were liable. The learned (-0Jnsel said he was instructed that i\lr. Collins had removed the labo 'rers to a distant barn, where they could not annoy his ne ehbtiUrs. irhe TV.; etss, being furtber examined, decided that the nuisance was abated. The LORD OHIEF JUSTICE said that he was clearly of opinion that if a man brou ght togetlher a great number of strangers, and gave them a place to live: in, without taking care to provitle them with accommodation for dre'sing their food, and forother purposes of life, lie was liable, in point of law, for any injury to his neighbours which the want of such provisions might cause. Mr. GASELEE then aceeptezl Ihe proposal made by the Attorney- General, and accordinglv, The Jary found a verdict for tho p3ainti'fr-Damagea la., the de- fendant agreeing not to give the barn opposite MIr. Ogilvy's house as a lodging to his labourers in future. LIMPUS V. BAILEY. Thisw as an action bytheproprietors of an Islev:orth stageapainsttthe proptictorsof a Brentford stage, to recover damages for injury done to a mare by the negligent and inimoderate driving of the coachman of the defendants. The cae, as represented by the witnesses for the plaintiff, was as follows :-About j o'clode in the eveniing of 21st of June last, the Isleworth.coach wasdrawn npto the curb-stone, waiting forapassen- ger, and a cart was standing on the opposite side of the road, leav- inK a apace so narrow, as to require great caution in any one attempt. ing to drive a carriage through it. At this moment the Brentford- coach was driven furiously through; the wheel came in contact withl that of the Isleworth-stage, and drew round. bv the concussion, one of its leaders, which was struck by thc splinter bar and received a serious injury. It was agreed that, in case the plaintiff'should re- rover a verdict, the amoun t of damages shoul li be lOh. Mr. ScAMr'ETT addressed the .Jury for the detenehants. imputing the action to a feeling of resentment against the defendants for ex- -tending their journey to l,leworth, and stating that lie should be abte to show that the injury resultedl from accident, and that if .here wvas any blame, it was on tle part of the plaintiffs thenlsclves. 'tsc learned counsel called wvitneisser who represented the (he- z'eindats' coach driven at a moderate pace, the plainitiff's horses as bcin, restive, anld the accidenlt as arinsing from an attempt to force back one ol' the lenders wh12ich had started towards A Limc into the rigbt line of the inad. T1he LoRD CHIEF J3JuTsfC; left the jury to detemiine whiclh of these representations was true. The jury immediately returncl a vwxdict for thc plaintiff-Da~ mages IOL COT'RT OF RT>tN(}R R1;.NCW VFqLr T)qTEnTt FEB. 21. OGILVY V. COLLIN'S.