WEST BRITON AND CORNWALL ADVERTISER APRIL 11, 1851 COUNTY COURTS ST. AUSTELL This Court was held at the Town-hall, St. Austell, when thirty cases were entered for trial, but none were of any interest. TRURO This court was held on Friday last, when there were thirty-six plaints entered for hearing, but none of the cases involved any feature of public interest. HELSTON At this court on Monday last, an important case affecting landlords and tenants, was tried before a jury, and excited considerable interest. LORY v. RICHARDS Mr. HILL appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. ROGERS for defendant. Mr. Hill opened the case to the jury, from which it appeared that the plaintiff is a Lieutenant in the Navy, and the owner of two tenements , called Jerry's and Rickard's tenements, part of Arrowan in the parish of St. Keverne, of which the defendant was formerly tenant; the defendant held the estate under a lease, dated the 24th of September, 1836, from defendant and his brother, which expired at Michaelmas 1848. Previous to the expiration of the lease, defendant agreed with plaintiff to take the farm for another term, on the same conditions with the exception that at the end of the term, defendant was to leave the wheaten straw on the premises. A draft lease was prepared and read to defendant; he raised no objection to the terms, and made appointments to execute the lease; this he failed to do. Defendant expressed a wish to give up the estate at Michaelmas 1849, which plaintiff agreed to, but defendant afterwards refused to do this. Plaintiff then gave him notice to quit, which expired at Michaelmas 1850, at which time defendant quitted the estate. The farm was between 50 and 60 acres, about 30 acres of tillable ground, out of which upwards of 20 acres was in tillage the last year. The premises were left in very bad repair, no grass seeds had been sown, and all the straw had been carried off the farm contrary to the covenant of the lease; and the action was brought to recover damages from defendant for not complying in these respects with his lease. At Michaelmas, 1848, plaintiff purchased his brother's interest, and in July, 1850, gave defendant written notice to farm the estate in compliance with the lease, and on his quitting at Michaelmas 1850, gave defendant notice to send a valuer to meet Mr. RICHARD THOMAS, plaintiff's valuer, to view the condition of the premises. Defendant did not send a valuer, and Mr. Thomas proceeded to value the dilapidations and a few days after another notice was served on defendant stating the result of Mr. Thomas's inspection of the premises. The barn on the premises was not a good one, and it had been defendant's custom to thrash his corn in a barn on an adjoining tenement occupied by him. Plaintiff offered to build a new barn if defendant would carry the materials, and enter into a contract with a mason and carpenter to do so, but defendant refused to carry out his part of the agreement, and the barn was not built. Mr. HILL then cited several cases in support of the plaintiff's claim to shew that a tenant holding over after the expiration of a lease and paying rent holds the premises as tenant from year to year, subject to the covenants of the lease, and that the term of the old lease are to be incorporated with the new contract made between the parties. The plaintiff, and his son, and their hind, were called, and spoke to the arrangement being come to for defendant to hold the estates at the old rent; the notices given to him to comply with the lease and the state the premises were left in by the defendant; that oats had been thrashed in a barn shortly before defendant left the premises. Mr. RICHARD THOMAS, the land-valuer, stated that on the 30th of September last, he attended at the premises formerly occupied by the defendant, for the purpose of valuing the dilapidations, &c; that he found the estate in the most wretched condition - it was left shamefully bad; that there were three or four gaps left in a fence. He then gave a detail of his valuation which was classified under the following heads: Amount of repairs of buildings on the said premises, GBP 5.4s.0d; amount of repairs of fences, GBP 10.9s.0d; repairs of gates, GBP 3.14s.0d; loss sustained by defendant carrying off straw, 18 acres, GBP 18. In making his valuation he had made every allowance for the old state of the buildings, and his valuation was what he considered to be fair and reasonable for the defendant to pay. Mr. Rogers then addressed the court on behalf of the defendant. He contended that the plaintiff was not that kind and just landlord Mr. Hill had described; the defendant had paid all his rent and was obliged to take off the straw from the estate, as the barn was not fit to thrash in, and he had done so for many years by the permission of Mr. Lory. He strongly urged that defendant was not bound by the terms of the lease, and was therefore not bound to seed or repair or to leave the straw. The amounts named by Mr. Thomas were much too high, and it was absurd to leave out ten acres of barley. It was the first time he had heard of excepting reed of wheat in a lease. The defendant was called by Mr. Rogers, and stated that he had occupied the estate for thirty years, and paid GBP 65 a year for it - had paid all his rent - that he had sent men to repair the fences and the thatch; he left the premises as good as when he took them; he seeded one field but the seeds did not grow; had always carried the corn to MR. ROSKRUGE's farm, the barn was not fit to thrash in on the premises. He should not return the straw unless he were made to. Two of the defendant's sons and two workmen were called, and stated that they, with others, had been engaged several days shortly before Michaelmas in repairing the fences, &c, &c, the premises were left in good repair. The learned Judge then re-called Mr. Thomas, who stated that if repairs had been made he should have seen them; there were none visible. -MR. CHARLES ROSKRUGE stated that his father held a lease of an adjoining tenement of plaintiff's; the corn was always brought there by defendant; there was no barn on the premises worthy the name of a barn; the fences were pretty much the same as they are in the neighbourhood; considers defendant a fair farmer; considers it good farming to till twenty out of twenty-eight acres. -Mr. WILLIAM JOHNS, land-valuer, stated that he went to view the premises last Friday; valued them in 1837 in GBP46, for St. Keverne poor-rate; thought the farm as well managed as any in the neighbourhood; considers the straw worth 7s.6d. an acre and GBP 3 a fair sum for not seeding the ground; he could not state who had put the premises in their present state of repair. Mr. Hill replied at great length, commenting on the evidence which had been adduced, and confidently submitted that he had established his case; he thought all tenants ought to have the greatest consideration, especially in these days of depression, but he considered if the practice which had been pursued by the defendant were allowed to be followed, it would entail great injury on the agricultural interest, both to tenants and landlords; he urged the jury not to look at the case as a tenant's and landlord's question, but to decide fairly and reasonably between the parties. The learned Judge then went through all the evidence with his usual clearness and ability, and the jury after half-an-hour's deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff, GBP 21.16s. being about half the amount claimed. The trial occupied the court twelve hours. PENZANCE The monthly sitting of this court was held on Tuesday last. The number of cases appearing on the list was twenty-three, the greater part of which had been settled out of court. There were also two cases which stood over from the last sittings for his Honor's judgment. HILL and another V. WEAVER (one of the shareholders in the Penzance Shipping Company) In this case, which excited a considerable degree of interest, the plaintiffs, who are pilots residing at the Quay, sought to recover from the defendant the sum of GBP 6.18s.2d., the expense incurred in repairing their boat or pilot-gig. >From the evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiffs, it appeared that the plaintiffs' gig was, in the afternoon of the 21st day of August last, lying near the outer steps of the old pier; that the "DUKE OF CORNWALL" schooner, the property of the Penzance Shipping Company, was then being warped out of the pier for the purpose of proceeding to Mousehole to take in a cargo of stone, but by means of some mismanagement (as alleged) of those on board, ran, or rather fell against the plaintiffs' gig, taking it amidships, and jammed or pressed it against the pier with such force as to cut her in two and sink her. One of the plaintiffs was on board the gig for some time previous to the accident, and watched the "DUKE OF CORNWALL" until she was warped out to a certain distance, when, thinking his boat ran no chance of being injured by the schooner, he quitted her for about twenty minutes, but on his return he found his boat sunk. The amount sought to be recovered was the actual cost alone expended about the boat in repairing her, the plaintiffs waiving any claim they night have for their loss of the use of their boat for the time occupied in repairing it. For the defence it was contended that the injury was merely an accidental one, and as such no action could lie against the owners of the schooner; that the plaintiffs had violated one of the rules invariably observed in the piers (it being a tidal harbour, and where great caution was necessary) by not being on board their gig and removing her out of danger, the rule being that all owners of vessels and boats should have some one on board to guard and remove them from any probable or threatened danger, and that parties leaving vessels or boats in an unprotected state did so at their own risk, and inasmuch as the plaintiffs had neglected their duty in this instance, the loss must be borne by themselves. MR. RICHARD PEARCE, agent to Lloyds, Capt. JAMES BROAD, Deputy Harbour Master, and others, were called on the part of the defendant, and spoke to the strict observance of the rule referred to, and that the plaintiffs' gig, although lying at a place where gigs were sometimes places, was just in the path of vessels going out of or entering the pier, and in a place of danger. It was also attempted to be shewn that the schooner was warped out in a proper manner by the crew of the vessel, assisted by a well-known branch pilot, and his crew; but on the cross-examination of SAMUEL CEELY, one of the pilots, he admitted that one of the warps was so very "greasy" the men could not hold it, and the consequence was the vessel swung around and fell off towards the old pier so rapidly, that supposing the plaintiffs were on board their gig, they could not have removed her out of danger. His HONOR observed that the evidence fully justified him in saying that negligence had been shewn on the defendant's side, particularly when the occurrence took place in daylight, when the defendant's servants might well have judged their position. That the witnesses for the defendant had confirmed the plaintiffs' witness to a certain extent, the plaintiffs' witness having given his opinion that the vessel was slacked away too suddenly, and defendant's witness having stated he did slack away as quick as he could. He did not think due caution had been observed, and considered that the plaintiffs were entitled to the sum they asked. Verdict for the full amount and costs. MESSRS. MILLETT and BORLASE appeared for the defendant, and Mr. PASCOE for the plaintiffs. LADNER V. STEVENS This case stood over from the last sitting, for his Honor's judgment. This was an action brought to recover the sum of GBP 50, which defendant had received over and above the amount of debt and costs actually due him, in an action which he had brought in the year 1847. The main object to the action was that the plaintiff, being in America, had not the power of suing in the County Courts. However, the learned Judge was of opinion that it did not depend on where the plaintiff resided, but where the cause of action arose; he considered that a plaintiff residing in America could sue in the County Courts, provided he (plaintiff) gave security for costs, and that the practice of these courts should be in conformity with the practice of the superior courts. As security for costs had been given in this case, the judgment was for the plaintiff, for the amount sought to be recovered. Mr. DARKE for the plaintiff. TOZER and WIFE v. GUNDRY This was an action to recover a legacy of GBP 20 per annum, claimed to be due under the will of the father of the female plaintiff. [The defence contended the court had no jurisdiction; from the nature of the legacy claimed it necessarily belonged to a Court of Equity.] The annuity in question was made payable out of a certain leasehold property bequeathed to the defendant, and which, at the time of the testator's death, was of greater annual value than the annuity itself. Since his death, some portion of the property had fallen in hand, and the value of the remainder had greatly depreciated. As the value of the property had become lessened, the annuity of GBP 20 should abate in the same proportion as the present rent - the abatement would have to be ascertained, and the fair reduction made by the aid of a Court of Equity. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant took the property as a bequest subject to the annuity, and having acquiesced therein for several years, by payment of the annuity, he thus made himself personally responsible. His Honor decided that the Court had jurisdiction, and adjourned the case to the next court, directing the defendant to furnish the court with an account, setting out the rents received from the property, and shewing what surplus, if any, was in his hands for the purpose of paying the legacy. [Does anyone know what was meant by "some portion of the property had fallen in hand"??] Julia Mosman, OPC for St.Austell,Charlestown, and Treverbyn Website at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~staustell W. Briton newspaper transcripts at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad Please visit the OPC website at http://cornwall-opc.org