« 上一頁繼續 »
Obstructing a Footpath by means of which Damage was caused
to the plaintiff 1. The defendant placed and kept, or caused to be placed and Claim for kept, upon and across a common and public footway being part
on a footand parcel of a public highway, a rope tied to a ladder erected and standing in and upon the said public highway in front of ing the
plaintiff and against a certain house there, to the area railings of which special the said rope so extending over and across the said footway damage. was fastened.
2. The defendant wrongfully permitted the said rope to be and continue upon and across the said footway as aforesaid without using proper or any means or taking proper or any care to warn and protect persons lawfully passing along the said footway from coming upon and against the said rope.
3. By means of the premises, the plaintiff lawfully passing along the said footway and employing ordinary caution in the use thereof came upon and against the said rope, and was thereby thrown down and fell to and upon the ground, whereby one of her arms was broken, and she was otherwise greatly bruised and injured, and has been obliged to incur and has incurred expenses for surgical and medical attendance and otherwise.
The plaintiff claims :
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant says that the rope and ladder in the 1st Defence. paragraph of the statement of claim mentioned were at the time of the alleged accident necessarily placed on the said footpath, and were being used by the defendant for the purpose only of painting and repairing the said house, and extended only over a very small portion of the said footway, and the defendant exercised ordinary care and diligence to avoid mischief therefrom.
2. The defendant denies the several allegations in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of claim, and further denies that the plaintiff was employing ordinary caution in the use of the said footway, or that it was by reason of any wrongful act of the defendant as alleged that the accident occurred, or the plaintiff sustained the alleged injury or damage.
3. In the alternative the defendant says that the plaintiff at the time of the happening of the accident was so intoxicated
claim for nuisance on a footpath.
as to be incapable of taking care of herself, and the accident occurred, and the damage, if any, were caused by the plaintiff's own negligence and want of ordinary care in and about using the said footway.
Nuisance caused to a Neighbour by defective Drains. Claim for 1. In the month of August, 1875, the plaintiff was the occunuisance caused by pier of a public-house known as the White Horse, No. – defective Street, and the defendant at the same time was the occudrains. pier of No.
Street, which adjoins the plaintiff's said public-house.
2. In the said month of August, 1875, a quantity of water and filth percolated through the dividing wall from the defendant's cellar into the plaintiff's cellar, and injured and destroyed a part of the stock-in-trade of the plaintiff, and otherwise damnified him.
3. The said injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in not keeping his said drains in a proper and sufficient state of repair, thus rendering them unable to carry the water and filth therein into the common sewer, whereby the defendant's cellar was flooded, and thence the said water and filth percolated into the plaintiff's cellar, as alleged.
The plaintiff claims :
Nuisance caused by Defendants placing Soil, dc., against a Wall
adjoining Plaintiff's House. Demurrer to the Claim. Claim for 1. At the time of and before the commencement of the nuisance caused by
damage hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was and he still is filth, &c., possessed of a house known as No. 16, — Street, S. percolating
2. The defendants then were and still are possessed of a from defendant's certain close of land adjoining the said house of the plaintiff. land into
3. The defendants placed and deposited in and upon the said plaintiff's house. close of the defendants, and upon and against a wall of the
defendants which adjoins and abuts against the house of the plaintiff, large quantities of soil, clay, limestone, and other refuse, close to and adjoining the said house of the plaintiff, and thereby raised the surface of the defendants' land above the level of the land upon which the plaintiff's house was built.
4. The rain which fell upon the said soil, clay, limestone, and other refuse so placed as aforesaid, oozed and percolated through the said wall of the defendants into the said house Claim for
nuisance of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's house thereby became wet, caused by damp, unwholesome and unhealthy, and less commodious for filth, &c., habitation.
from de5. By reason of the said acts of the defendants the walls of fendant's the said house of the plaintiff became and were very much plaintiff'
land into injured, and the paper and plaster upon the said walls have house. been destroyed.
6. In the alternative the plaintiff alleges that the defendant so negligently and improperly placed and deposited the said soil, clay, limestone, and refuse upon the defendants' said land that the rain-water falling thereon oozed and percolated through and into the plaintiff's house, whereby the plaintiff's house was damaged as before mentioned. 7. In the alternative the plaintiff
' says that the defendants were guilty of negligence in this, that the said wall of the defendants against which the defendants so placed the said soil, clay, limestone, and refuse was not sufficiently and properly constructed and built so as to prevent the water falling upon the said soil, clay, limestone, and refuse from oozing and percolating through the said wall and into the plaintiff's house, and that the defendants were guilty of negligence in placing the said soil, clay, limestone, and refuse against the said wall, being so insufficient to prevent the water falling upon the said soil, clay, limestone, and refuse from oozing and percolating through and into the plaintiff's house, whereby the plaintiff's house was damaged, as before mentioned.
The plaintiff claims :
Demurrer. The defendants demur to the plaintiff's statement of claim, Demurrer. and says that the same is bad in law, on the ground that the acts, matters, and things alleged to have been done by the defendants do not give rise to any right of action on the part of the plaintiff (a).
(a) A demurer to this effect to a statement of claim as above set out was overruled in Hardman v. North Eastern Rail. Co. (38 L. T. N. S. 339.)
Nuisance caused by flooding Plaintiff's Land. Claim for 1. At the time of the committing of the grievances hereinthe flooding after mentioned, the plaintiff was possessed of two closes of land plaintiff's situate in that portion of D. St. N., in the county of L., land. known as
and bounded by —; and was also possessed of a ditch and of two gateways or passages forming the entrance from the road on the bank of the river G. over the said ditch into the said respective closes, and of certain other lands near to the said ditch, all situate in the parish of D. St. X., in the county of L.
2. The water passing along the said ditch lawfully passed and was carried by means of culverts or tunnels under the said gateways or passages forming such entrance as aforesaid.
3. At divers times in August, 1876, the defendants wrongfully broke and entered the said closes and the said ditch and passages and gateways respectively, and broke down and dug up and destroyed the said passages and gateways, and the said culverts and tunnels under the same respectively, and dug holes in the said closes and passages and gateways respectively, and removed large quantities of earth and soil therefrom, and damaged and destroyed the same.
4. By means of the premises, large quantities of water were wrongfully caused and permitted to flow and did flow from off certain lands of the defendant and other lands through and along the said ditch into and upon the said closes and the said other lands of the plaintiff, and remained thereon for a long time, and damaged the crops and seeds of the plaintiff then growing thereon, and the plaintiff was deprived of means of access for himself and his cattle to and from the said closes and the said road, and lost the use of the said closes and other lands, and was otherwise damnified.
The plaintiff claims £100.
Nuisance obstructing the Access to a Way granted to the
Plaintiff's Predecessor. Claim for 1. Before the 27th October, 1840, one A. A. was the tenant an obstruction to the
for life in possession under certain deeds, wills, and settleplaintiff's ments of certain lands called “ The R. Estate," at G., in the right of
county of D., having a frontage to the river T., and on the way.
estate was a quay, which was convenient for the owners of the Claim for a estate to ship goods on to ships in the T.
obstructing 2. At that time the N. and C. Railway Company, who are the plain
tiff's right now incorporated with and form a part of the N. E. Railway
way. Company, were authorised under their Acts of Parliament to take the part of the said “R. Estate ” which was afterwards conveyed to them.
3. By the said Acts of Parliament the said A. A., being tenant for life in possession, had authority to make and execute the conveyance to the said railway company hereinafter mentioned.
4. By indenture made the 27th October, 1840, between the said A. A. of the one part and the said railway company of the other part, after reciting . . . [Here follow various recitals, including one that there was an ancient public foot and horse-way along the quay on the “ R. Estate," and that it had been agreed that the company should make and maintain a new public foot and horse-way in lieu thereof, which it was recited they had done. The indenture then proceeded that the said A. A. granted and released to the said company the said quay, to have and hold the same subject to the several easements thereinafter stated.] The easements were :--Firstly, a footway, horse-way, and carriage-way, fifteen feet wide, upon, along, and across the said quay, to or into and from and out of
other way and any road or passage, or in any part of the said “R. Estate," or any other lands or hereditaments of the said A. A., or of the person or persons so entitled as aforesaid, or their respective assigns, and that for any purpose . . . Secondly, a footway, horse-way, and carriage-way on, along, and across a part of the quay and piece or parcel of ground expressed to be thereby granted and released so as in the using of the said way the free passage upon or along the railway of the said company be not unnecessarily impeded or interrupted. Thirdly, the exclusive liberty of landing and embarking and receiving and delivering by means of the way lastly hereinbefore mentioned manure, dung, or goods of any amount or kind, from or into any boat, lighter, keel, or other vessel in the river T., and of depositing such manure, dung, or other goods upon so much of the said quay as extends [here follow the