Tovey, Goldstone v. - 394, 562 Wilson, Brighton Railway

ERRATUM.
Page 565, marginal note, line 10 from the bottom, for "duty" read “duly.”

IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

TRINITY VACATION, 2 & 3 VICTORIÆ.

THE JUDGES PRESENT WERE-PARKE, B., PATTESON, J., WILLIAMS, J.,
GURNEY, B., COLERIDGE, J., AND MAULE, B.

CHADWICK v. TROWER and Others.

[Error from the Court of Common Pleas.]

THIS
was an action on the case. The second count of
the declaration stated, that, before and at the times of
committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned, the
plaintiff's (below) were possessed of a certain vault situate
in the city of London, and used and occupied the same in

1839.

Saturday, June 29th.

The second

count of the declaration

stated that the possessed of a

plaintiffs were

vault and of

certain wine

therein; that the defendant was about to pull down and remove and did pull down and remove certain other vaults and walls next adjoining the plaintiffs' vault; and thereupon it became and was the duty of the defendant, in the event of his not shoring up or protecting the plaintiffs' vault, to give due and reasonable notice to the plaintiffs of his intention to pull down and remove the said vaults and walls so adjoining the plaintiffs' vault, before he pulled down the same, so as to enable the plaintiffs to protect themselves; and also to use due care and skill, and take due, reasonable, and proper precautions in and about the pulling down and removing his vaults and walls, so that for want of such care, skill, and precaution, the plaintiffs' vault and its contents might not be damaged or destroyed:-Held, that no duty was by law imposed upon the defendant either to shore up the plaintiffs' vault, or to give them notice of his intention to pull down

his own:

Held also, that the using due care, skill, and precaution in removing his own vaults and walls, so as to prevent injury resulting to the plaintiffs' vault from the absence of such care, skill, and precaution, was not a duty by law imposed on the defendant, in the absence of an allegation that he had notice of the existence and nature of the plaintiffs' vault.

General damages having been given upon the whole declaration:-Held, that the allegation as to the want of notice could not be rejected, and the damages ascribed to the rest of the declaration, even if good.