#### MARGARET A. FULCHER v. H. C. SMITH and wife STELLA SMITH.

(Filed 25 February, 1959.)

Venue §§ la, 2a—

Allegations to the effect 'that plaintiff leased a store building and purchased a stock of merchandise situate therein, that 'thereafter defendant lessor made improper proposals as a condition to her right to remain in possession of .the premises, that his demands put her in fear of bodily harm so that she was forced for her safety to abandon her leasehold rights and sell her stock of -merchandise at a loss, state a transitory cause of action for assault, 'and plaintiff is entitled to institute .the action in the county -of her residence.

Moore, J., took no part in 'the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendants from Moore (C. L.), J., September-October 1958 Term of CbaveN.

This 'action was -begun 20 February 1957. The oomplaint in substance .alleges these facts: (1) Plaintiff, a resident -of Craven County, in November 1956 leased from defendants a store building situate in Pitt County and purchased a stock of merchandise situate therein.

(2) Shortly after plaintiff took possession, -defendant H. C. Smith threatened her, demanding that she .submit to sexual intercourse with him as a condition to her right to remain in possession of the demised premises. His demands and threats put ber in fear -of bodily harm.

(3) The assaults were repeated in such .manner -and to such extent as finally to force .plaintiff, for her safety to abandon her leasehold rights and sell her stock of merchandise for less than its actual value.

She seeks compensation and p-uni-tive damages.

Defendants in apt time filed with the clerk a motion to remove as a matter of right. The clerk denied the motion. On appeal from the clerk, the judge held the action was properly instituted in Craven County -and -denied -the motion. Defendants excepted and appealed.

Cecil D. May and Ward and Tucker, for plaintiff, appellee.

James & Hite and Barden, Smith & McCotter, for defendants, appellants.

PeR CüRiam.

The cause o-f action stated is for an assault. The lease and plaintiff’s occupancy pursuant thereto merely -afforded an opportunity for an -assault. The forced abandonment of plaintiff’s property to escape defendant’s advances is but an element -of -damages. The action is -transitory, not local. Clay Co. v. Clay Co., 203 N.C. 12, *646 164 S.E. 341; Causey v. Morris, 195 N.C. 532, 142 S.E. 783.

Affirmed.

MooRE, J., took no pant in -the consideration or decision of this case.