
    Givens v. Van Studdiford, Appellant.
    
    1. Private Nuisance: damages. Where the owner knowingly permits a brothel to be established and maintained in his house, which adjoins a tenement of another, by reason of which the latter’s tenants leave, and his property is depreciated in value, the former is liable to the latter for the special damage thereby caused him, over and above the wrong and injury done to the general public.
    .2. -: measure oe damages. In such a case the measure of d i n ages is the difference in the selling value of the property and th loss of rent occasioned by such nuisance.
    
      3. -: -: evidence of damage. In ascertaining these facts, all circumstances that would show a depreciation in value should be considered, and the damage recovered must be the actual depreciation shown to be caused by the existence of the nuisance.
    4. -: -. Where it is shown that, after defendant’s house was occupied as a brothel, other houses of the same character were opened in the same neighborhood, so that the damage caused by others cannot be separated from that caused by defendant, he will he liable for all such damage, if the natural and probable consequence of his illegal act was to cause the injury complained of.
    
    
      Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      Broadhead, Slayback & Haeussler for appellant.
    
      Wm. G. Rainey for respondent.
    
      
      These syllabi are taken from 4 Mo. App. Rep. 498.
    
   Hough, J.

Tbis was an action to recover damages to certain real property of the plaintiff in the city of St. Louis, alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of a certain nuisance maintained by the defendant upon premises of his adjoining those of the plaintiff. The defendant had judgment in the circuit court, which was reversed by the court of appeals. The opinion of the latter court, which contains a full statement of all the matters in issue, is to be found in 4 Mo. App. Rep. 498. As we fully concur in the views expressed by the court of appeals, we shall not attempt to restate them, but will content ourselves with simply affirming its judgment.  