The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1884-02-05 00:00:00

LOCAL LAW SUIT.
LOCK V. POPL

In the Queen's Beach' Division of she High Cowl
of Justice, before Mr. Justice topes, this action wee
tried on Tumidity laet.—Mr. Fischer, and Mr. E.
Ford (instructed by Mr. Arthur H. Lock, solloit,r,
Dorchester), appeared for the plaint if, and Mr.
Arthur Charles, Q.C., and Mr. Bailin (instruired by
Masan. Andrew, son, and Hugtable, solicitors, Dor-
chester), for the defendant. —Mr. Flintier, in opening
the case, stated that the plaintiff was • member of the
well-known firm of Keene. Ward, Look, and Co.,
pobliabers, and the defendants were • wealthy firm of
brewers at Dorchester. The Sun lan at Bur:on WWI
held on lease from Lord Doheeter for 99 year. from
1838, determinable on lives. Tbe lease of the property
In question was sold by emotion to the detnte on
the 10th March, 1899, together with. policy of lasnr-
shoe for £3OO on the life of the person at whom death
1b.).... would determine for £4OO, and &deposit of £44
was paid. The team could not be assigned without
the permission of Lord 'kinetic or hie soot, the
latter of wham had promised the plaintiff that if
suitable purchaser was found, and certain repairs
executed, • licence to aesign should be granted.
Previous to the sale the defendant, Mr. A. Pope, had
sent a surveyor t survey the property, and had
called at the °Noe of the plaintiff's solicitor and
inspected the lean, and way thus folly aware of the
covenants therein. At the sale the auctioneer stated
that the premises were in • fair state of repair, but
were sold am they stood. The defers lents agreed to do
the repair. required, and on the 4th of July, 1882, the
plaintiff's solicitor wrote to the defendants • letter
containing the following words As soon as you
have done the repairs I will again apply to Lord
Hcheeter for the license to amigo: To this the de-
fendant, Mr. Allred Fops, replied on the 6th of July
—" Ws shall be ready to take parsons to-day on the
tenni of your letter of July 4th," and thereupon
possession wee given to the defendants. The repairs
were not executed by the defendants in accordance
with their agreement, coda, they perniotently refused
to do so, on the 4th of November, 1882, the plaintiff's
solicitor gave the defendants a notice reminding the
contract, which he was entitled to do under the
conditions of sale, sad as they refused to give up
possession, after many fruitless attempts to mettle the
matter amicably, this action was commenced,
Mr. Flasher then called the plaintiff's eolicitar, who
deposed to the fact,.. stated by the learned counsel.
Tin defendant, Mr. Alfred Pope, was willed by Mr.
Charles, and denied tbat he bad made any verbal
agreement with the plaintiff to put the premises in
repair, and in that respect his erbium was in direct
oonfliot with that given on behalf of the plaintiff.
More than once during the evidence the learned Judge
suggested that is was desirable, in view of the conflict
of evidence, and the position of both parties, that a
settlement should be come to, but was found to be
impoedble
The learned Jades, in giving judgment, again
expressed hie regret at losing compelled to determine a
question on which such ocefiloting testimony had been
given, and mid that had the arms rested upon the
evidence of the two gentlemen who had been °Wed—
gentlemen of equal respectability and standing—lt
would have been very hard indeed to come to a
csosoluake, but, fortunately, it did not stop there, He
thought—deed, he wail compelled to think—that the
evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff win wilirelY COO"
@Latent with the correspondence which had taken plain,
while that of the defendant was inconeletent with it.
He had come to the conclusion that Mr. A. Pope had
sgreed that his firm should do the repairs to the
premises, and he therefore gave judgment for the
plaintiff for possession of the inn end premises in a
month. The defendants were entitled to the return
of the deposit £44 paid, which sum he awarded to the
plaintiff in respect of mane profit'. Judgment in
the one would be for plaintiff, and the defendant/
must pay all the meta of the action.