Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-02-08

Yesterday, in the court in general tern, the
'ase C HermGn schmidt against Smfth Petit
vas taken uP-Nessrs. Gray and Bright for
Ina this case plain tiff charges that on the Eth
august, 1861, defendant and enc julius We
made an indenture by which defendant .sfei
In December, 1853, defendant repewef that
to the plaintiff (Schmidt); that itv laid lease
that, at the end and Terminate - supuiated
soea order and copdton uA premises in equal
" excepted; and turtle .hre, or other casual
any part sh0 Se ss eTe SS gr ere
tsnsh,e' that ths fhat the same should be nm
feriant show Sn;, snc so eease nnsh the de
Txa. ~, sod tenantabie order and condition.
na. ne 9Th day Of March, 1870, while the
I N was in the possession of the premises,
lat they became unfenantabfe; and the de-
PENDANT proceeded to rebuild, and did rebuild
said premises, and had the same completed and
$50: And the plaintiff says, that although he,
at all times, kept and performed all the stpula-
tons and covenants Of said lease and renewal,
On so nus part to es Kept and and al
said, he requested and demanded of the defend
ant TO give to the plaintiff possession Of the said
premises, under the lease the defendant refused.
And he claimed damages for s1i 900. The de-
PENDANT plead that the alleged deed was not his
deed; that after the fire and before the premises
that plaintiff failed to perform the stipulations.
On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence n
lease, and evidence that on the 4th day of
March, 1870, the premises described i'm said
lease were partially destroyed by fire, 80 as to
render them untenantab1e; that after said
remises were partially destroyed the defendant
erected an entirely new building on the site of
the old one, and that the annual rental value of
the premises after the erection of the new build
ing was 81 600 per year; that the new building
was completed and ready for occupancy about
the LIST of November, 1870, and that on or about
the 18th day of October, 1870, when said building
was about completed, the plaintiff demanded
the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to
resume possession, and never allowed him to
occupy the said premises again. The plaintiff, on
cross examination, testified that after said burn
ing the said premises were worthless to him;
The defendant gave In evidence that At the date
of burning the plaintiff was two months rent in
arrear, and that q portion of said rent in arrear,
demanded of the plaintiff about two weeks be-
fore, and that all the rent so demanded and in
arrears was not fully paid until the month of
September, 1870; and that plaintiff paid no rent
of said property. And the defendant further
introduced and gave evidence tending to show
that the plaintiff had surrendered said lease and
premises; that the new building cost about
eleven thousand dollars; was much more valua.
BILE and costly than the old one, and that 1t was
built by, and at the expense of the said defend
ant; and that had said premises been repaired
and put in the same or like condition as before
the fire, their rental value would not have been
more than the rent reserved i'm the lease, add
that the old premises could have been put in
like condition as before the fire for about 81 500
And the plaintiff further to maintain and prove
the said issues on his part introduced and gave
evidence tending to show that he had not sur
rendered his lease on said premises. The jury
found a verdict for plaintiff for $3.50.
The case now comes up on exceptions.