The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-22 00:00:00

SIIERIFF'S COURT—('fins Dix.)

READ V. MARTIN.
This was an action for the Jury to assess the
damages, for rent and dilapidat!
' Mr. AnoLeuus stated the case.—The defen-
dant, Martin, had had a lease of a house` n
Pickett-street, Strand, now turned intd -the
Weekly Globe Newspaper Office, the covenant
of which ran, that he should amend, cleanse, aild
so forth, instead of which, on his leaving it; it
was in a dilapidated state, so much so as to re-
quire to put it in even tenantable repair,'a sum
which, in addition to the standing rent, made the
amount 1251., which besought to recover at their
hands.

111 r. Henry King deposed, he examined the house on the
.23d
March, 1823, the day after it had been left; the dilapidatiOns
that had accrued were from wilful and gross neglect ; 25/.
would be the least sum that would reinstate the fixtures car-
ried away. There were many other dilapidations which were
indispensably requisite to be done, the windows were much
broken, and the bill-stickers had covered the exterior of the
shutters.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. LAW, Counsel for the defendant.
—Witness does not know when he first went there ; never
knew of any notice being given, none was given ; cannot swear
the dilapidations took place during the defendant's tenantry ;
there were many fixtures in the house.
By the COURT.—Went to make the survey four days after
the term expired; knows the defendant, he is a solicitor in
Lamb's Conduit-street ; the rent is 791.
Mr. LAW, in his address to the Jury, contended that the
terms of the record had not been satisfied ; both the Attorney
and :Special Pleader had vitiated the point of their own cause.
The lease required expressly, that upon leaving the pre.
miles, in the event of any dilapidations having accrued,
three months' notice should be given by the landlord for
their reparation—this he apprehended did away any thing
with regard to the claim for dilapidation, and he conceived
the Jury would have to banish it from their minds entirely..._.
With regard to the rent, they had, by suffering judgment to
be taken by default, acknowledged something was due; but in
this he would prove by witness, that the plaintiff agreed to
accept some valuable fixtures and to deduct their amount of
value from the rent, which paper he would produce, and call
a witness to prove it.—Here Mr. Law called a witness to iden-
tify the hand-writing.
Mr. ADOLPHUS observed the only way an instrument could
be proved was by the subscribing party, who was dead. This
was held sufficient to invalidate the instrument.
Mr. George Chew, surveyor, saw the premises in the
occupation of the defendant, and made an estimate of
the fixtures, value 531. 153. At the quitting of the pre_. mises he would deduct 101. from their value. A consi-
derable sum had been expended on the premises before
the underletting ; 21. would have repaired the glass ; during
this time Mr. Liromall called from Mr. Read, and asked if he
had any of Martin's concerns to settle, and was answered In
• the affirmative; he said the fixtures had been abandoned when,
they key was given up.
Cross-examined by Mr. A DOLPHIJ S.—. The incoming tenant
did not purchase them ; he (witness) would give 30/. for than
himself; the window-frames were not broken, nor were the
dilapidations much.
S. Pike, surveyor, corroborated the last witness's testimony.
R. Kennedy was in Martin's kitchen at a time when Read
called to demand his rent; he said he would agree to deduct
the amount of fixtures, and take it at 10/. per month.
Mr. Law here again called the attention of the Court to the
clause in the lease.
The COURT feared it could not travel out of its regular
routine of law, moreover as the liability to repair was admitted.
Mr. Law contended Mr. Read was the author of his own

31i: ADOLPHUS ingeniously replied.
The SHERIFF addressed the Jury, and told them it was for
their consideration if a set-off could be allowed.
The Jury gave a verdict for plaintiff—Da-
mages 1041.