The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-08 00:00:00

DAMAGES BY RABBITS.

In the Court if Chancery, the cause of "Harrington
v. Harrington" has been heard, before Viced 'hancellor
Sir .1. Stuart, and was an application made on behalf
if some tenants from year to year on Lord Harring-
ton's estates in Derbyshire for compensation for damage
done to their farms by rabbits which had been turned
out on the property by the orders of the late earl, who
died in 1805, six months before he would have attained
his majority. The aggregate amount of the claims
was £1,30.5 9s.
Mr. Dickinson, QC., and Mr. Cracknall, who ap-
peared for the claimants, said that when the matter had
previously been brought before the Vice-Chancellor
during the lifetime of the young earl, he had directed
it to stand over until his majority, when it was proba-
ble that a satisfactory arrangement would have been
concluded between the young landlord and his tenants.
Tb e unfortunate circumstance of his death under age
I had rendered this impossible, and on applying to his
mother and guardian, Lady Harrington, who had been
allowed £8,090 a year for his maintenance during his
minority, and who had, as his next of kim inherited
half the accumulations—a sum exceeding £:lo,9oo—by
his death, she had refused to entertain the claim, and
they had been obliged to come tothis Court. The facts
were as follows :
- - -

--
The earl had succeeded to the property on the death of his
father, on the 7th September, 1862. The following year, in
1863, when he was about 17 years old he had turned 12 hem-
pen of live rabbits out upon the property, which increased
and multiplied to such an extent that two years afterwards
no less than 13,000 were destroyed, part .4 which had been
sold for £6OO, which had been paid into and formed part of
the fund in court During 1864, 1865, and terel cohsiderable
damage had been done to the crops the tenants had remon-
strated with Lady Barrington, who was the infante guardian,
With the infant himself, and also with the receiver, who took
measures to have the matter brought heti re the Court, and
they contended that as the rabbits had been turned out by
the infant's orders and for his pleasure, they were now en-
titled to claim against the estate for the damage done.
Mr. F.. K. Karelake, Q.C., and Mr. E. Hall, who
appeared for Lady Harrington, were not called upon.
, The Vice-Chancellor said that the difficulty which
the applicants had in supporting their motion arose
from the very unfortunate circumstance of the death
of the infant earl. This application was the renewal
of one made at Chambers during his life. When that
was made it appeared to him that the aincunt claimed
by the tenants for the injury inflicted by the rabbits
was preposterous. In some emirs it exceeded half a
year's rent. It appeared, however, to him then that
such a case had been made that when the earl came of
age he might probably, and perhaps on the recommen-
dation of the Court would, have dealt liberally with
the tenants, and have given sonic compensation. With
that view, the earl being then near twenty-one, he
left the matter to his kindly consideration when he
came of age. Unfortunately his death had defeated
the intention with which the claim had been sus-
pended. But what was proper to be done by a sen•
sible landlord in dealing with his tenants was very dif-
ferent from the question now before the Court. 'What
he now had to decide was whether the tenants were
creditors on his estate for the amount claimed, or for
any amount for the damage done to their farms by the
rabbits. It was a claim for unliquidated thunages for
a wrong, and, there being no contract, their case must '
fail. It had been argued that the late earl's estate
having been increased by a sum of £6OO, the value of
the rabbits sold, the defendants were entitled, at all
events, to a claim upon that amount, but he was un-
able to find any principle in law on which that could
be supported ; and, besides this, there was a still
greater difficulty in the way of the tenants. The
Countess of Harrington. the legal personal representa-
tive of her son, who was the guardian of his person
during his minority, said that the tenants had leave to
kill the rabbits. The only one who complained to her
was told to kill them, and he had withdrawn from the
claim. Their having had leave was a very unfavour-
able circumstance to their case. He should refuse the
application, but not with costs; for if during the
infancy, instead of the absurd way in which the case
had been brought before him, he had been asked
whether it was for the infant's benefit to make any
compensation—though the infant was neither bound in
law nor equity—yet, he might, as a generous landlord,
have found a way to make the tenants some allowance.
The application would be refused, but without costs.