The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-02-05
IN IhIPoRTiNT CASE.
CInims for Rents Accruins Daring
the War.
lFEoM OUR own CORRESPONDENT

COLUMBIA February 4.
The case of Benjamin A. Parker and Eliza
beth A., his wife, eXecutrx OF William Greer, vs.
Patrick j. Coogan, the arguments Of which were
concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday, Is
most important, and affects many citizens Of
Charleston, as parties interested have claims of a
similar character, involving thousands OF dollars
waiting the decision OF this case TO determine
whether or not they shall commence action.
Is appears from the briefs OF this case that OH
tile first Of July, 1850, William Greer leased 10
Patrick j. Coogan, for seven years, at the rate
OF twelve hundred and fifty dollars per annum,
payable quarterly, the premises known as the
French Coffee House, (now THE NEWS Office on
East Fay street, Charleston. Coogaa took pos
session at the time above named. continued in
possession until the middle of February, 1862
when he was compelled to close up by the Mayor,
who was acting under an order OF the Governor
ITO clese all grogshops and prohibit the sale OF
oil intoxicating drinks in the vicinity OF the lines
of Notifications now being erected In and about
the City OF Charleston during the time that me-
groes ore employed upon the same" From that
time forward, by virtue OF said orders and by the
casualties OF war. Coogan, without his default
sion Of said premises after August 1868, until
the close OF the war in April, 1895. The prem
scs were within range, and actually repeatedly
hit and greatly injured by the bombardment Of
Charleston by the United States forces on Norris
Island, and ut the close OF active military opera
lons, In 1861 the premises were so dilapidated as
to be uninhabltable. In June, 1865. CuOgan peli
toned Colonel Woodford, United States Military
Commander OF the Post of Charleston, who tho n
had the custody and control OF said premises, for
permission 10 occupy tllcm Colonel Woodford
granted the petition upon the condition that the
petitioner would put the building in thorough re-
pair, which he did, (eXpending about one thou
sand dOilars,) and then occupied it until June,
1866, when, the lease having expired, lie surrcn-
dered the building to Giccr.
In 1867, after the death OF Greer, Parker, who
had married the deceascds widow, sued Coogan
for SGU56 o. being the rent, with interest thereon,
from April lst, 1862, to July lst 1866. The case
was brought before Judge Carpenter. when Coz
Gan offered to prove that on July /, 1862, lie paid
s312 so in fu to April lst, lSG2, for said premises
TO William Greer, deceased, and that on that oc-
cason said Greer and himself had conversation
as to the rent OF the coffee house, and Greer in
formed him that "while the then state OF things
continued, lie, Greer, could hardly expect him,
defendant, to pay rent" From that time forward
till some time In 1866, rent for said premises was
never demanded 10y Greer or any other person.
The court refused 10 admit the evidence and
instructed rhe jury: that If the defendant leased
the premises in 1859, as indicated by the lease OF
William Greer to him for seven years, and pursu-
1noc 1, 1a dan in
sion of the premises, then he must be held to the
payment OF all the rent as stipulated, which
has not heen paid, with interest thereon from the
time 1t became due. The jury, Of which George w.
Williams was foreman, found for Parker in the
sum OF s72O7 90.
The case WAS represented before the Supreme
Court by d. T. CorGin and Henry Bust for The
defendant, and Duryea & Cohen for the plaintiff.
The counsel for the defendant rested their case
mainly upon the case of Bayly VS.. Lawrence,
Bay, 400. In this case, the defendant had, pre-
vious to tile Revolutionary war, rented q ship
yard II Port Royal, S. c., and during the war
was driven away by the British. The owner of
the ard sued him for the rent for the time lie was
disr assessed. The court held that he should bc
held responsible for the rent oaly for the time he
peacefully en)oycd" tic premises, ana that there
should he deduction for the time he was dis.
possessed of them by the casualties OF war. The
couns for tile plaintiffs quoted, in support Of
their position q case reciting that, during the
Revolutionary war, a tenant was driven by the
British from q house he had rented in Pennsyl.
rana, and was disposscsse0 OF the premises for
some time; that, after the war, the owner sued
him for the rent, and the court decided that lie
fur
the premises, whether he was or was not able to
occupy them.
If this case be decided against CoOgnn, 1t is pro-
hab' that the owners OF all the buildings In
Charleston whose tenants were driven out by the
hombarlment, will 1T once commence suit against
their tenants: in fact as before stated. may have
already placed their claims in the hands Of law
pending before deciding What action to take in
the premises. l..