HANTS SUMMER ASSIZES
NISI PRIUS COURT
Ford v. Duplock.—Mr. Yonge conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. H. T. Cole that of the defendant.
This was action brought to recover compensation for an injury which the plaintiff had sustained by reason of the breach of contract and improper acts of the defendant. The plaintiff was a milliner at Petersfield, and she rented some rooms of the defendant. In 1860 the defendant wanted to make some alterations in his premises, which adjoined those of the plaintiff. He told the plaintiff she must remove into other rooms for a time, and he promised that the alterations should be completed in five weeks. She accordingly removed, and she could not get back again for nine months, and the rain bad been allowed to come into the rooms, so that they had become damp, and her goods were spoilt. The plaintiff also lost her customers, and she brought this action for compensation. It turned out that the plaintiff had not paid any rent since 1860. The defence was that the plaintiff was always requiring repairs to be done, and that all the alleged alterations were made at her request by Sir William Jolliffe, of whom the defendant rented. Every thing was done as soon as possible, and the plaintiff had never been asked for any rent since.
At length a juror was withdrawn.
Hampshire Chronicle Saturday 18 July 1863
Ford v. Duplock.—This action was brought by the plaintiff, Ann Ford, against her late landlord. Wm. Duplock, to recover damages for injury done to her property, to her business, and also to her health, and likewise for breach of agreement and obstructing a right of way. Mr. Yonge, for the plaintiff; Mr. Collier, Q.C. and Mr. Cole for the defence. It appeared that the plaintiff was a milliner at Petersfield, and defendant, her next door neighbour, was a stationer. He held a lease of the premises, and in 1855 plaintiff became a yearly tenant of a portion of his premises at an annual rental of £6. In May, 1860, defendant represented to the plaintiff that he was desirous of making certain alterations and improvements in the house, which he could not carry out without obstructing her premises, and that it was necessary for her to remove. Being a busy time, she at first objected, fearing her trade might be injured. A suggestion was then made that the defendant should take some rooms for plaintiff’s use, and pay the rent while the alterations were going on. Ten days afterwards defendant told plaintiff he had taken some rooms close by. They did not suit her, and he then told her that if they could not arrange matters he should give her notice to quit, and it was finally arranged that she should remove under the distinct understanding that the whole of the alterations and improvements should be completed within five weeks. The plaintiff then took her goods to a smaller place, which was extremely inconvenient, and she could not get back again to the rooms she had rented from the defendant for nine months. The window was out and the rain poured in for many weeks, and made the place so damp that her goods were spoilt. Her health likewise suffered from the dampness of the premises, and she also lost customers. For defendant, it was denied that there was any right of way other than permissive enjoyed by the plaintiff, and that there was any agreement such as set forth. The plaintiff (Mr. Collier said), had greatly exaggerated the inconvenience she had sustained. No time had been named for the completion of the repairs, defendant having no control over them as they were done by order of the owner of the property, Sir William Jolliffe. Plaintiff during the interval had been provided with a better house than her own, and had, in fact, no reasonable ground of complaint at all. After the evidence of the defendant had been given, a consultation took place between the learned Judge and the counsel, which resulted in a juror being withdrawn.