Slike strani
PDF
ePub

1832.

not done that which a tenant from year to year ought to do.

The sash lines, the broken panel of the door, the latches, catches, locks, and keys, are all, clearly, things which a tenant from year to year ought to make good.

AUWORTH

Johnson.

Lord TENTERDEN, C.J. (in summing up).--It appears that this was a very dilapidated house, when the defendants took it, and that they have had a very considerable quantity of work done upon it. However, the first question is, what are the things which an occupier of a house from year to year, is bound to do. I am of opinion, that he is only bound to keep the house wind and water tight, and that that is all he is bound to do. A tenant who covenants to repair, is to sustain and uphold the premises, but that is not the case with a tenant from year to year. A great part of what was claimed by the plaintiff consists of new materials where the old were actually worn out; for that the defendants are clearly not liable: and if you think the defendants have done all that tenants from year to year ought to do, considering the state of the premises when they took them, the defendants are entitled to your verdict.

Verdict for the defendants.

Campbell and Kelly, for the plaintiff.

Hutchinson and Channell, for the defendants.

[Attornies-Garry, and Lowten & N.]

In the case of Ferguson v. on the case against a tenant at 2 Esp. N. P. C. 590.-Lord Ken- will, for permissive waste, the yon said, “A tenant from year to Court held, that the action would year is bound to commit no waste, not lie for permissive waste, aland to make fair and tenantable though it would have lain for repairs, such as putting in win- wilful waste. dows or doors which have been In the case of Baker v. Holtbroken by him, so as to prevent pzaffell, 4 Taunt. 45, it was held waste and decay of the premises." that the landlord of premises

In the case of Gibson v. Wells, demised under a written agreeI N. R. 290, which was an action ment might recover, in an action

1832.

AUWORTH

V. JOHNSON.

But it appears

for use and occupation against use the premises in a husbandlike
the tenant, the rent accruing manner, but is not liable to ge-
after the premises were burnt neral repairs."
down, and no longer inhabited With respect to clerical dilapi-
by the tenant.

dations, in the case of Wise v. by the case of Horsefall v. Ma- Metcalf, 10 B. & C. 229, the Court ther, Holt, N. P. C. 9, that the held that the incumbent of a rectenant would not be bound to

tory was bound to maintain the rebuild or repair after a fire.

parsonage, and also the chancel, In the cause of Powley v. Walk- and to keep them in good and er, 5 T, R. 373, it was held that substantial repair; restoring and the mere relation of landlord and rebuilding when necessary, accordtenant of a farm, is a sufficient ing to the original form, without consideration for the tenant's pro- addition or modern improvement; mise to manage the farm in a and that he was not bound to husbandlike manner.

In the case supply or maintain any thing in of Legh v. Hewitt, 4 East, 160, the the nature of ornament, to which plaintiff succeeded in an implied painting (unless necessary to preassumpsit in the tenant to man- serve exposed timbers from decay), age the farm according to the and white-washing, and papering custom of the country. And in belong." the case of Horsefall v. Mather, See also the case of Percival Gibbs, C. J., said, that a tenant v. Blake, ante, Vol. 2, p. 514. from year to year “is bound to

Adjourned Sittings at Westminster, after Trinity

Term, 1832.

June 20th.

BECKFORD, Esq. v. Crutwell. In stating the AssuMPSIT against defendant, as a common carrier termini of the journey in de- from London to Bath, for not safely carrying and deliverclaring against

ing a painting, of the value of 801., sent by his waggon from a carrier, the word London London to Bath. will be taken as a nomen collec- The plaintiff proved the delivery of the case contivum, including all that is com

taining the painting, at the Old White Horse Cellar, in monly so called, Piccadilly, in the county of Middlesex; and that twopence and not the city merely. was paid for the booking, the book-keeper being told that

In an action against a carrier for the loss of a painting, it appeared that the stage waggon in which it was sent had seven borses, but that there was only one waggoner: the L.C. J. left it to the Jury to say, whether the sending but one waggoner was gross negligence; and they found that it was so.

it was a painting, no extra carriage or insurance being paid.

1832.

BECKFORD

0. CRUTWELL.

Campbell and Wyborn, for the defendant, objected, that, upon this evidence, the plaintiff should be nonsuited, as the termini of the journey were not properly described, the Old White Horse Cellar not being in London, but in another county; and they cited Tucker v. Cracklin (a), where, on a count stating a contract to carry from the Blue Boar in Whitechapel, in the county of Middlesex, it being proved that the Blue Boar was actually in the city of London and not in the county of Middlesex, although the whole neighbourhood commonly went by the name of Whitechapel, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-The word London is nomen collectivum for this purpose, although some convictions against stage-coach proprietors have erroneously proceeded upon this supposed distinction.

The defendants proved an express notice that they would not be liable for parcels above 51. value, unless entered as such, and paid for accordingly (b). But it was proved,

(a) 2 Stark. 385. In the case coach was licensed to run from of Ditcham v. Chivis, I M. & P. Charing Cross only; and that the 735, which was an action on the plaintiff was taken up at the Elecase against a stage coach pro- phant and Castle, in St. George's prietor for an injury sustained by Fields: It was held, that, as Chara passenger, the declaration al- ing Cross and St. George's Fields leged, that the defendant was the are both in coinmon parlance stiled owner of a stage coach, for the London, the allegation was suffi. conveyance of passengers from ciently proved. London to Blackheath, and that (b) There has been a great alterathe plaintiff had agreed to become tion made in the law on this subject, a passenger, and that the defen- by the statute 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. dant had agreed to receive her as 4, c. 68, by sect. I of which it is ensuch passenger, to be carried from acted, “That from and after the London to Blackheath; and the passing of this act, no mail conevidence was, that the words Lon- tractor, stage coach proprietor, or don and Blackheath were paint- other common carrier by land for ed on the coach door; that the hire shall be liable for the loss of

1832.

upon cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, that the practice with their waggon was to proceed out of

BECKFORD

v. CRUTWELL.

or injury to any article or articles said, the value and nature of such or property of the descriptions fol- article or articles or property shall lowing ; (that is to say,) gold or have been declared by the person silver coin of this realm or of any or persons sending or delivering foreign state, or any gold or silver the same, and such increased in a manufactured or unmanufac- charge as herein-after mentioned, tured state, or any precious stones, or an engagement to pay the same, jewellery, watches, clocks, or be accepted by the person retime-pieces of any description, ceiving such parcel or package.” trinkets, bills, notes of the gover- And also, by sect. 2, " That when nor and company of the Banks of any parcel or package containing England, Scotland and Ireland re- any of the articles above specified spectively, or of any other bank in shall be so delivered, and its value Great Britain or Ireland, orders, and contents declared as aforesaid, notes, or securities for payment of and such value shall exceed the money, English or foreign, stamps, sum of ten pounds, it shall be lawmaps, writings, title deeds, paint- ful for such mail contractors, ings, engravings, pictures, gold or stage coach proprietors, and other silver plate or plated articles, glass, cominon carriers, to demand and china, silks in a manufactured or receive an increased rate of charge, uninanufactured state, and whe- to be notified by some notice afther wrought up or not wrought fixed in legible characters in some up with other materials, furs, or public and conspicuous part of lace, or any of them, contained in the office, warehouse, or other reany parcel or packages which shall ceiving house where such parcels have been delivered, either to be or packages are received by them carried for hire or to accompany

for the purpose of conveyance, the person of any passenger in any stating the increased rates of mail or stage coach or other pub- charge required to be paid over lic conveyance, when the value of and above the ordinary rate of such article or articles or property carriage as a compensation for the aforesaid contained in such parcel greater risk and care to be taken or package shall exceed the sum for the safe conveyance of such of ten pounds, unless at the time valuable articles; and all persons of the delivery thereof at the of. sending or delivering parcels or fice, warehouse, or receiving house packages containing such valuaof such mail contractor, stage

ble articles as aforesaid at such coach proprietor, or other com- office shall be bound by such nomon carrier, or to his, her, or their tice, without further proof of the book-keeper, coachman, or other same having come to their knowservant, for the purpose of being ledge.” And also by sect. 4, "That, carried, or of accompanying the from and after the first day of Sepperson of any passenger as afore- tember now next ensuing, no pub

1832.

London for one stage with two men, and after that with one waggoner only, changing the waggoner every twentyfive miles. It was also proved, that no stage waggons ever employed more than one waggoner beyond the first

BECKFORD

v. CRUTWELL.

lic notice or declaration hereto- liable to be sued by his, her, or fore made or hereafter to be made their name or names only; and that shall be deemed or construed to no action or suit cominenced to limit or in anywise affect the lia- recover damages for loss or injury bility at common law of any such to any parcel, package, or person, mail contractors, stage coach pro- shall abate for the want of joining prietors, or other public common any co-proprietor or co-partner in carriers as aforesaid, for or in re- such mail, stage coach, or other spect of any articles or goods to be public conveyance by land for carried and conveyed by them; hire as aforesaid.” And also, by but that all and every such mail sect. 6, “ That nothing in this act contractors, stage coach proprie- contained shali extend or be contors, and other common carriers strued to annul or in anywise affect as aforesaid shall from and after any special contract between such the said first day of September be mail contractor, stage coach proliable, as at the common law, to prietor, or common carrier, or any answer for the loss or any injury other parties, for the conveyance to any articles and goods in re- of goods and merchandizes.” And spect whereof they may not be en- also, by sect. 8, “ That nothing in titled to the benefit of this act, any this act shall be deemed to propublic notice or declaration by tect any mail contractor, stage them made and given contrary coach proprietor, or other comthereto, or in anywise limiting mon carrier for hire from liability such liability, notwithstanding." to answer for loss or injury to any And by stat. 5, “That for the pur- goods or articles whatsoever arispoposes of this act every office, ing from the felonious acts of any warehouse, or receiving house coachman, guard, book-keeper, which shall be used or appointed porter, or other servant in his or by any mail contractor or stage their employ, nor to protect any coach proprietor or other such such coachman, guard, bookcommon carrier as aforesaid for keeper, or other servant from liathe receiving of parcels to be con- bility for any loss or injury occaveyed as aforesaid, shall be deemed sioned by his or their own personand taken to be the receiving house, al neglect or misconduct.” But, warehouse, or office of such mail by sect. 9, carriers, although the contractor, stage coach proprie- value of the goods is declared, are tor, or other common carrier; and not to be liable for more than the that any one or more of such mail value proved at the trial; and by contractors, stage coach proprie- sect. 10, they may pay money into tors, or common carrier shall be Court.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »