View report page

130
CHANCERY DIVISION.
(Before Swinfen Eady, J.)
Adams v. Ursell.
108 L. T. R. 292.
Nuisance—Fried Fish Shop—Injunction.
The plaintiff in 1907 purchased H. House where he practised as a veterinary
surgeon. The defendant entered into possession of the adjoining house in
November, 1912, and started the business of selling fried fish there, which he
cooked from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., causing (it
was alleged) a smell pervading every part of the plaintiff's house which was
so unbearable he had to keep all his windows closed. The defendant alleged
that he had the most up-to-date ranges. He lived in a manufacturing town
and the premises were in the lowest part of the town and had been used as a
pork butcher and bacon curer's shop.
Held, applying the definition in Walter v. Selfe (4 De G. & Sm., at p. 322),
that a common law nuisance had been proved which must be restrained by
injunction till trial of the action.
Gwynne v. Clarke.
77 J. P., 173.
(Before His Honour Judge Johnston, K.C.)
Local Government—Public Health—Infectious Disease—Pulmonary Consumption—Liability
for infection—Lodger in Boarding-house—Warranty
or misrepresentation.
A person who, knowing that he is suffering from an infectious disease,
succeeds in gaining admission as a lodger to the house of another person, by
either falsely representing that he is not suffering from any infectious disease,
or by warranting that he is not suffering from some particular infectious
disease, renders himself liable in damages, the amount depending upon the
actual loss which reasonably followed from the false representation or the
breach of warranty.
In a common law action the degree of infectiousness of pulmonary tuberculosis
is one of fact in each particular case.
A person suffering at the time from pulmonary tuberculosis came to a
boarding-house to take lodgings. The landlady recpiired a statement as to
whether he was suffering from tuberculosis, and she was assured by a friend of
his in his presence that he was not, but was just recovering from congestion
of the lungs. She made no further inquiries and was satisfied with that
assurance.
Held (following the principle laid down in Heilbut Symons & Co. v. Buckleton
(1913) a.c.p. 64) that there was evidence of an intention on the part of
the parties that there should be a contractual liability in respect of the accuracy
of the statement and that the landlady was entitled to recover damages from
the executor of the consumptive in respect of breach of warranty.