The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-07 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 6.

WARWICK AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS OF WARWICK, V.
HAYNES AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS OF FARRINGDON.

Mr. THESSIGER stated that this was an action brought
►to recover a sum of 239/. on a covenant of indemnity.
Sir James Esdaile devised several premises in and about
Bunhill•row to his eldest son, Peter, for life; remainder
to his first and other sons in tail ; remainder to his
second son, James, for life ; remainder to his first
and other sons in tail, with remainders over ; and power
was given to the tenant for life in possession to make
leases for twenty-one years, at the beat rent that could be
got without fines. Peter Esdaile, when he came into
possession, made a lease to Charles Warwick of several 0.
these premises for twenty-one year., at a rent of 1691. a
year. The lease commenced in 1809, and Warwick con-
tinued in possession under it till 1815, when he assigned
two houses in Blue Anchor-alley, part of the demised pre-
mises, to Farringdon, at the apportioned rent of 50/. In
the lease to Warwick there were the usual covenants to
pay the rent and to keep the premises in repair, and
leave them in repair ; and the deed of assignment bound
Farringdon to perform the covenants as to these two houses,
and to indemnify Warwick against the consequences of
neglect. Peter Esdaile died without issue, and James, the
second son came into possession as tenant for life and died,
and his first son James came into possession as tenant in
tail, and he, in 1819, conveyed his reversion in the two
houses in Blue Anchor-alley, to a Mr. Simmons, an auc-
tioneer. Theoccupants paid rent to Simmons from 1819
to Michaetmas, 1829, but the rent from the latter period
to Lady Day, 1830, when the lease expired, was not paid,
and Simmons applied to Warwick for payment of 251,
the half-year's rent, and for a sum of 1691. for dilapida-
dons, and, on refusal to pay, commenced an action against
Warwick on the covenants in the original lease. War-
wick gave notice of this to Farringdon, and called upon
him on his indemnity to pay the sums demanded, or de-
fend the action. This Farringdon refused to do, and
Warwick suffered judgment to go by default, and then
brought an action against I•'arringdon on the covenant to
indemnify. Before the action was tried, Warwick died,
and then his executors brought their action, and then
Farringdon died, and then the action was brought against
his executors, the present defendants.
Various documents were produced, and verbal testimony
given in support of tl.e case state° for the plaintiffs.
Mr. RICHARDS, for the defendant, observed, that in the
declaration, the reversion was laid as being in Simmons,
and he admitted that this had nut been made out. He
contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover
the 44/. and 20/. costs.

The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested that the best way
would be to take a verdict for the whole sum, subject to
be reduced by the amount of the costs, according to what
might he the opinion of the C.ntrt.
Verdict for the plaintiff!, for 2391. subject to he re•
duced as aforesaid.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 6.

SHARP V. MAY.

This was an action to recover compensation in the way
of damages, brought icy the plaintiff, who was a passenger
in defendant's coach, running from London to Chertsey,
when the axletree broke, the passengers were thrown upon
the road, and plaintiff had his thigh broken, and received
other injuries of a serious nature.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-3001.