The Express.
London, England, 1864-05-25 00:00:00

DI RII D DIMSFIRLD. -.I ODOM:MIT.

The Vice-Chancellor this morning gave judgment in this
ease. It will be remembered that the bill was filed to
obtain a deans that the defendant should execute to
the plaintiff • lease of certain property at Paddock,
near Huddersfield, and that the defendant might be
restrained by the order and injunction of this
court from prosecuting an action of ejectment against
the plaintiff. The facts of the case were shortly these: In
1837 there existed on the property in goodie's, which be.
longed to the then Sir John Remedies, • system of granting
verbal leases to the tenant of it, such leases being renew.
able every 30 years on payment of a fine of two years' ground
rent ; or every 40 years, at • fine of ten years' rent. The
plaintiff in 1837 because tenant of the land, at a ground
rent of 41. per annum. The land was originally a stone
quarry ; but, being in possession of it, the plaintiff guatly
improved it, built a house upon it at a cost of 1,8:SOL, and
otherwise immeasurably increased the value of the property.
In 1839 the then Sir John Ramadan died, and at that time
the Remedios estates, of which the land in question formed
a part, were vested in trustees, upon trust for the de-
fendant until his majority, which he attained in I'..i, and
then upon certain other trusts for him for his life. la
1844 aed 1859 the trustees were empowered, by private
acts of parliament then passed, to grant leases of the
Itamaden estates for 90 years, at larger rent. than
had been hitherto reserved. Negotiations were accordingly
entered into between them, Sir John Ramaden. and
(among other poisons) the plaintiff, with • view of idterin;
the tenure by which such persons held their 15n.1.. and
raising the rent thereof. In the case of the plaintiff it ens
sought to increase his rent from 41. per annum to I :t, per
annum : the effect of which would be, if generally carried
out, most materially to augment the value of the Ramaden
property, already very great. Sir John Ramaden and his
trustees ultimately gave the plaintiff notice to quit ; and on
his racial to give up possession of his land an action of
ejectment was brought against him. The plaintiff then
filed the bill in this suit for the purpose above stated. Ile
contended that he was tenant of the land with a perpetual
right of renewal, which he called a tenant-right, on
waist of a fixed flue ; that he was duly admitted by Sir
John Remodels, or his agents, on that understanding ; that
he had paid his rent punctually till this time ; and that
be had greatly improved the property in his hands. The
defendant here denied the alleged tenant-right, insisting
that the plaintiff was only& tenant at will ; and that he was
not entitled to the relief he prayed by his bill.
Mr. Malins, Q 0., Mr. Daniel/. Q. 0., and Mr. Fielding
Nakier were for the plaintiff ; and the Attorney-General,
Mr. Bans, Q.O. sad Mr. Chapman Barber for the defendant.
The Vice-asseallor, after stating the facts of the case,
said that the defendant, Sir John Saundra, could not be
allowed to disturb the plaintiff in his powassioa of the Lod;
that the plaintiff was entitled to have a lease granted Whim
under the provisions of the act of 1844, but that the rat to
be reserved and paid ender the lease must be double that
hitherto paid; that such double rent must commence from
the date of the lease, which must be renewable for ever,
under the provision, of the same act of 1844 ; and that it
mast be settled in chambers. The defendant must also pay
the costa of the suit.