The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-12-04 00:00:00

"Egyptian Government cold to English Govern-
ment Suez Canal
,Z.her 'f £4,000000 sterling.
th Minister is author dra ,on Rothsehili,lat
sight."—Frides gilegra,m.
t
As our Indian door-key we mean to hoafast,
BRITANNIA'S wilf she has now fountaWay for;
On our shop-keeping instincts contempt let them cast,
But who'll take what we've forked out four millions to
pay for. . • ror.mi.
Sucha sum if it Suit JOHN. BULL'S int'rest 16 pay,
It is clear it suits Eg3pt's 'cute Chief to receive.
Now KHEDIVE upon RoTHScHILD may draw any day,

We must take care ttat nobody draws on KIIEDIVL
• Pti.
# $ 2
THE RIGHTS OF LANDLORD AND

'UNA
- Ist

_
ffillicirichequor DlVlision of the High Court of Justice
,33efoxe the I,ord Chief Baron, Baron Cleasby and Aniphlett,
the -cayser of "Shelton v. Wighten" has been hParcl, and
‘vhfcb- was an appeal from thpluallii '-01444f44e5er
—heltien.atr-kithuoutotr vedan lm, 'octet us

regards the rights of landlord.. and tenant.—Tl

twit ,
'hp following
rI
.s;
'erlidan

rep-ort of the cti-lie is from The Times :

The action is one of detinue ; and at the ,rial a ver-
dict was found for the plaintiff,—damagcs! £lO, and
£2O 16s. 4d., the value of the goods, unless rtturned. .
Mr. Busqh 'Cooper argued for the defeioldant, the
appellaseit.
Mr. John Cook appeared for the respondent, but
was not called on by the Court. .The complaint is for
taking the plaintiff's goods, furniture, a piano, So.
The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant, and the
alleged detention took place on the 29th of September,
1874, when the tenancy expired. The evidence was
that while the plaintiff was removing her goods on the
"29th, tle6 defenciimt, atelevelve o'clock (nooh), called
and clalneed his rent. Thereupon the plaintiff asked
for time ; but this the defendant refused to grant. The
defendant then came with a policeman, and ordered
the goods, which were placed in a van, to he returned to
the house. The goods were accordingly brought back.
Afterwards the defendant got the key of the house
from the plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Herbert, who was
then superintending the removal. The house was then
given up to the defendant, but the goods were never
returned. On the 30th September application, in
writing, was made by the plaintiff's solicitor for the
return of the goods. But to this the defendant made
no reply, and the writ was issued on the 3rd of
October.
Mr. Cooper, for the appellant, contended that t - ere
was no evidence to go to the jury of the detention.
There was no tortious act done by the defendants—no
physical seizure.
The Lord Chief Baron said :—This seems a pretty
clear case. The law invests the landlord with great,
with extraordinary powers. The day after rent is due
he may distrain. Any other creditor, except the Crown
in certain cases, must bring an action and wait--
for execution. That is a power, however, which ought
not to be abused, as in the present case. The defendant
has a tenant who owes him rent at Michaelmas.
He would' have been entitled to distrain on the
30th. But he goes on the very day and sees the
defendant about to remove her goods. He takes the
law into his own hands. He goes and call a police-
man he says, as a witness—it is difficult to see why.
Under his authority aud that ef the policeman the
goods are taken out of the van, where they are for the
purpose of removal, and are brought baele into the
house, where they are now, for aught I know. The
first question is whether, though he took possession, he
in fact detained. I think when he laid hands on them
by his agent to convey them baak, until they should be
restored to the owner, the defendant had possession and
did detain thew. If it were not so, the owner would have
no mote rights over them. The plaintiff had A right
to convey the goods 'away. There is a suggestion of
fraudulent removal. If so, itwonld have beeia a good
defence to the action if he could have substantiated it
by evidence. The law confers on a landlord-the power
to stop goods which are being or about to be removed
fraudulently. There was no evidence at the trial to
give him such right. The question then resolves it-
self into this—the defendant had no right to touch the
things till next day; while he Is in the house he prevents
their removal and deprives the owner of the right to
do what she pleases with them. Within an hour
or two after the thiendant gets the key and some one
prays him for time—till five o'clock. He says "No;
I must have it at three o'clock. This was a reason-
able request a the plaintiff had till midnight to pay.
The reiusal was cruel and oppre,sive, and as illegal as
cruel; It would have been different if a reasonable
time had elapsed before the writing of the letter of
the 30th, or if the defendant had returned the goods on
the let of Ocober, or had intimated his willingness to
do so. The seizure may have been made under a mis-
take of law; but the defendant gives no answer to the
letter of request. Had he done so there would have
been evidence that he had not acted wilfully or know-
ingly. There was evidence for the jury, and, under
the circumstances, they could not have returned any
other verdict than for the plaintiff. I shall not say
whether the action is entirely to be commended ; but
the plaintiff had a right to bring it.
Baron Cleasby : The jury have come to the conclu-
sion that before eleven o'clock on the let of October the
goods were .in the defendant's possession, and wrong-
fully detained. We cannot say whether this is correct
or no, ,I might have found it difficult to find io my-
self. Was there evidence for the jury. is the sole ques-
tion for us. On the day the goods are being removed
the defendant sees them. Now, the defendant is bound
to act reasonably. Under the supposition that he is
being deprived of his rent, he directs them to be
taken back. If he had only forbidden the removal,
it would have been difficult to say he had taken
possession. If he had no right so to forbid, he was a
trespasser; but he had no right to place his hands on
the goods against the will of the owner. The house
was in the possession of the plaintiff, but would be-
come the defendant's on the evening of that day. We
must assume that the plaintiff wished the defendant to
have possession by delivering the key. Why did not
tho defendant answer the letter of the 30th of Sep-
tember? The jury had to consider the real character
of the defendant's act. I cannot•say it was not for
them.
Baron Anaphlett : I am of the same opinion.
Appeal distniesed, with costs.