The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

TURNER V. GRAHAM

The plaintiff and defendant in this ease arc both dead,
and the action was brought by the representatives
of the plaintiff against the executer of the defendant,
for use and occupatiiin of certain premises situate at
Westham, in Sussex. In appeared that in the year I 8•2.1, a
lease was executed between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby
the Vaintiff devised certain premises to the defendant at the
yearly rent of 136/. A clause was introduced into this
lease, providing that it should be renewable ever-7 seven or
fourteen }ears, upon sufficient notice being given. In 'the
year .1835. the lease expired, and was not again renewed, but
the defendant. continued in occupation of the premises, and
therefore this action was brought, not upon tie lease, but for
the use and occupation of the premises, as by a tenant at
will. On the death of the parties a suit was instituted
in the Court of Chancery with respect to the plaintiff's pro-
perty, and the Court directed the present action to be brought.
crater the Chancey y. suit a receiver was appointed by the
Court for all moneys, rents, &c., belonging and due to the
plaintiff. This was attempted to be proved in the
course of the trial, but the appointment was not pro-
duced , therefore: the Learned Secondary hell that lie con d only
look upon this person in the light of an agent oi the plaintiff for
the receipt of rents. The acknowledgement by this person of
rents up.to the year 1839, ft om the defendant, was put in, and
the question for the jury to decide was simply, whether they
believed the defendant to have been in possession of the pre-
mises since 1839, up to the time of his death in 1841, and if so,
their verdict must be for the amount of rent due since that time.
Evidence having been shown of the receiver under the
Chancery suit having received rents from the defendant up to
1839, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 223/.
We really tanned help adverting to the inconvenience expe-
rienced in this Court by persons who have to attend it. We
are surprised at its being allowed to remain a disgrace to the
City. '1 be inconvenience is telt by all parties, from the Judge
on the Bench down to the spectator. Many costermongers
would be ashamed to acknowledge it for their counting-house.
do\iTeeertainly
be %
esoorttiouof the
see somneammoe of a Law Court.reeommodiouselace
provided which

ADMIRALTY COURT, Feb. 17.
THE HARRIET.

Dr. LususNavoN gave judgment in this case. The Har-
riet was originally arrested at the instance of the owners of the
Woodpark, in a cause of collision. The case was defended
and argued, and was decided. The Court thought the Harri, t
to blame, and awarded the owners to pay the damages of the
collision ; as is usual in such cases, it was referred to the
registrar and merchants to ascertain their amount. At tlis
stage of the proceedings an agreement was entered into be-
tween the respective owners, and the damagts, were, by con-
sent, valued at 360/. Previous to the payment of the money,
however, the owner of the Harriet, who was liable for it, be-
comes insolvent. To whom, then, do the owners of the
Woodpark have recourse?—the parties who had become
security for him in the original suit. But they deny
their liability, and what is the ground of th.-ir de-
fence? They allege that their liability is removed by the
private agreement between the respective owners. To that
agreement they were not parties. They were not informed of
it, they gave no consent to it, and consequently they were net
bound by it. Thus it was argued on behalf of the bailors, and
the argument Dr. Lushington thought a sound one. He held
that from their liability they had been freed by the private
arrangement of the bailee and the ether owners, and decided
that against them the owners of the Woodpark could not re-
cover the damages which they hail sustained.