The New York herald., 1872-11-20
ALL ABOUT RENT FOR A SCHOOL
BUILDING.
Raising the Rent, but So High the
Landlord Could Not Reach It-Gctting
q Judgment but Not Getting the

Raising the Rent, but So High the
Landlord Could Not Reach It-Gctting z
Judgment, but Not Getting the
Money.
In 1868 Mr.. Jcx let to the BOARD of Education a
building on Broadway, near Forteth street, for q
year at S.. 500 rent, the same to be occupied as
public school. In February 1869, Mr. Jex, through
his agent, asked the Board If they desired the
premises for another year, at the same time stat
ing that he expected an increased rent. The
Board, as usual with public bodies embarrassed by
''red tape" delayed giving Mr.. Jex an answer until
in April when Mr.. Jex, as he claims, distinctly
notified them If the school remained for another
year there would be
AN INCREASE OF RENT
and lie should charge them $4,000 a year. The
school remained after the 1st of May, and then
tried to negotiate for a new tease; and Mr.. Jex
refusing to accept less than $6,00O the building
was vacated in July, and they refused to pay Mr..
Jex dollar. Mr.. Jex then sued them for the rent
falling due August L. and brought two suits after
wards for the rent due in November and February,
o M sne ss weps M o ne
The lrst suit was tried this Spring before Judge
Van Brunt and jury, and resulted in verdict for
to the. $4,000 q year rent. Judge Van Brunt
left 1T to the jury TO find whether
notification to the Board, and the Jury found he
did The Board also sets up that they could not
be sued, Notwithstanding the act of 1854 expressly
created them corporation. by the amendment of
1871 to the charter the Board was abolished. and
their duties devOlved on the Department Of Public
Instruction. There was an
APPEAL FROM THE VERDICT
by the latter, ana yesterday the subject came be-
fore Judge Fancher, at Supreme Court Chambers
Oh motion on behalf OF the defendants for a stay
Of proceedings without security. Pending this ap-
peal Mr. Nanderpocl occupied the attention OF
the Court In wisely insisting that now there
was no such corporation as the Board OF
Education, and hence that the suit could
merely technical points. Mr. Anthony X. Dyott,
counsel for Mr.. Jex, in his reply in opposition
to the notion characterized the ltigious spirit OF
the Board as dlsgraceful, and their application
factious and the defence technical and dishonest.
He insisted that the suit ought never to have been
paid at all events; that the counsel OF the Board,
although he claimed his client, was defunct and
had become part OF the Corporation which was
not represented, was contendng that Mr.. Jex had
no remedy now except against the city, who had
not been sued, and In the course OF his remarks he
said that such were the technical deiences set up
by the counsel OF the city and other public bodies
bushel OF potatoes, because the creditor never
knew when he would get his money, and that II the
ROBBERIEs OF THE CITY TREASURY
could be traced to their source 1t would be found
In this litgOus spirit which had first suggested the
purchase OF the way to justice. After listening to
the argument Judge Fancher said that he thought
the plaintiff would ultimately get his money on the
Judgment in some way, but he would not impose
further cmbarrassments upon him and would re-
quire the defendant to give security for the costs
Of the appeal and he accordingly granted the stay
upon such security being given,