The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-07-09
Marine Court,

Before Hon. Judge Thompson.
:a1s as an ssseo ss 1 Sy %sy .
P07k0.-This was an action upon lease, dated PED
rary 81 1863, for the renting Of the premises sf5
Water street in the city OF New York. for yeaS
tn N the lst II May, 1868, ut tho annual rens o.
six hundred and seventy.fve dollars. payable qnSa
terly, in adyance-defendaDt to pay the Crotoa
water Charges and to make all Deedfal and necessA'
ry repairs. The defen liant, 10 his answer. alleges
An eviction by the plaintiff. and also that ne
had paid the sum Of ffty-six dollars and tween
syfive cents for rent due for the month a
May, at the time Of the execution of the said lease
Which lie claimed to recover back in consequences u
such eviction. The premises were rented b.
plaintiff to the defendant. The execution Of the
lease having been proved the plaintiff then admitssd
the pay nent OF the Of fifty tx dollars aud tweuSa
i've cents, for the month Of May. 1t then appeared
nom tho evidence of the defendant that on the "a
day OF May, Richards caule upon the premises AID
Discovering that tbs Croton water pipe was leaking
srrned on the water and carried the pipe away ie
repaired whouthe authority permission of Parkey
that Parker finding the water thus cut off, ASKED
Richards what he was to do for water, whereupoa
Richards replied that he must get it in the street;
that on the next day, the Sd of May Richards again
came upon the premises, and said to Parker, that
he did not pay Aim live dollars per month, additions
al for the kitchen part OF the premises, he must pull
the Kitchen down; Parker replying my God, Dc
you intend to rob mei" and at the time saying
to person when he, Parker, had employed to do
some repairs, that he need do nothing further aud
that Richards might as well take the premises:
Parker then left the premises. Upon this evdenuo,
tie Court held that the conduct Of the plaintiff il
going upon the premises in question. and interfering
with the water pipes. and his threatening to pun
down portion Of the premises hired by the defend
ant unless the latter would pay him an additional
amount OF rent, was gross and unwarranted inter.
ference with the rights and privileges of the defoad
art, and amounted to an absolute eviction; and thst
the plaintiff was not only not entitled to recover
any rent, but that he should pay back to defendants
the amount of rent paid for the month of May ana
that the defendant was justified in abandoning the
premises. Judgment for defendant for $50 25.
Meyers Hole and Schilsher.-This action was4
brought to recover possession of lands held by the
defendants after the expiration of the term fH
which they were rented By the plaintiff About the
defendants the premises No. 81 Rector street. in.
this city from month to month, defendants paying
at the time for the fractional part OF the month q
February, after which the rent was payable In ad-
vance. On the first Of March plaintiff verbally
agreed to let the defendants have the premises
At the same rent, from the first Of the then EFT
May for one year ensuing. Defendants now clais
possession by virtue Of the last verbal agreement
The Court were Of the opinion, however that t,s
last mentioned contract not having been reduced -
writing and signed by the party 70 be charged AID
by its terms to- be fulfilled m future was void ~
tie statute Of frauds, and that defendants held p,$
session OF the premises by virtue OF the letting from
month to meth. Notice to remove was duly served
upon defendants Judgment for plaintiff that he have
immediate possession OF premises.
Before Hon. Judge Phillips.
IN the matter of Hetiia,Hgton vs Fzagg. the
Comp,ro.lcr, before reported which YVES on aotian
for gfully obtaining swo warrants from plaintiff
for the amount Of $97 3S, for services rendered ~
the plaintiff as clerk ia the Office OF the Register
The warrants were day audited, and were
| signed by the defendant, as Comptroller Of t1s
City and County, and countersigned by the Mayx
and she Clerk OF the Common Council. as required
| by aw The defendant denurs to the complaint fas
these reasons:-rhat the defendant, being public
| officer and Comptroller of tho City Of New York IN
rot liable in mn action at law for the cause stated.
che plaintiff has title to the warrants until they
have been actaalsy delivered to him Judgment for
| plaintiff on the demurrer with liberty to the desen,
| dant to answer the complaint