Star.
London, England, 1808-07-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 18.

,(MEDEN-LANE BREWERIC..—COOPER irwYBILL.
This was a case of considerable importance. It
vests an action of Replevin, brought by the Plaintiff
under tenant under the Defendant, of a public•
acme, in Charles-street, Hatton-Garden, which house
)4r. Elliot. the brewer, let to the Defendant, upon the
condition that the Plaintiff should continue tO take his
beer. The lease of these premises was fcr 21 years,
lit a rent of 52 guineas per year, with a govision, that
the. Plaintiff should take all his beer ofMr. Elliot ;
• default of his taking the beer, then the rent was to
)e raised to 120 guineas per annum, over and above

the a 2 guineas per annum.
The Plaintiff, it appealed, for a considerable time,
Continued to take beer of Mr. Elliot, but his custo-
mers complaining repeatedly of the bad quality of the
beer, and finding no amendment, left off dealing with
him. The Plaintiff then had recourse to the New
Brewery, in Golden-lane, and procured a supply from
thence ; stuck up a bill in his window to that effect,
and as a further invitation to his customers, promised
to supply them at 4.-kcl. per pot. The consequence
of this proceeding was, that in a short time not only
Ais old customers returned, but his business greatly
increased, in the proportion of three to one. Mr.
Elliot, upon this, put in force the covenant, and made
distress upon the Plaintiff's goods for the penalty,
viz. 120 guineas per annum over and above the con-
ditioned rent in case of taking beer of him. The Plain-
tiff replevied the distress, and brought his action. The.
Defendant avowed for the rent nomine pane, and the
plaintiff replied, putting all the special matter in issue.
The question now at issue was, whether the beer
was not of so bad a quality as to justify the Plaintiff
In taking his beer from another person to prevent his
being ruined in trade ?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the Plaintiff, obser-
ved, that Mr. Elliot was once a candidate for West- '
misister—he did not succeed in that object of his am-
bition ; that, however, was not very singular, for if
his speeches had not more spirit in them than his beer,
the electors would not relish them, and therefore he
could not expect to be elected.
To prove the bad quality of the ci-devant candi-
date's beer, twelve witnesses were called, who all
agreed as to the bad quzlity of it. Some admitted,
however, that at times it was better ; while others
said that it was offensive in taste and smell in the
highest degree.
On the part of the Defendant it was contended by
Mr. GARROW, that the breach having been commit-
ted under the covenant, his client was. entitled to the
penalty. Mr. Elliot was the owner of the house,
an therefore was interested in preserving the charac-
ter of it, and consequently would not pursue a line
of conduct which would injure his property. -
It was proposed by Mr. GARROW to call witnesses
to shew that his customers were generally satisfied
with his beer.
Lord ELLENaoaoroit however held, that such
evidence could not apply to this action, inasmuch as
it must be shown, that the Plaintiff had been served
with good beer.
'Lord Ectmeaonovoit, after stating the nature of
the action, observed, that the covenant was a severe
one, such as he hoped never to see introduced into
other leases. The. Plaintiff was justified in relieving
himself from the pressure of such a covenant, for if
be had continued selling this beer, not only his cus-
tomers would have fallen off, but the Plaintiff might
have subjected himself to an indictment for selling
beer unfit for public use, and injurious to the health
of his Majesty's Fubjects. He had no doubt that
Messrs, Elliot and Company meant to deal fairly by
their customers; but it was his duty to proceed on
that which appeared to him to be evidence. If the
Jury believed the witnesses, they must find for the
Plaintiff, for he was justified in dealing with another
Brewer, the covenant therefore was °lna avail.
A Verdict was taken for the Plaintiff in nominal
damages of One Shilling, which, however, necessa-
rily imply a return of the goods distrained.
JULY 20.—rtter V. MARSDM
This was an action for the board and lodging of
the Defendant's wife, charged at npvrards of
It appeared on the trial, that tht Defendant ard his
eiiife-had been separated for near 20.yeass, although
the deed of separation was not produced. The De-