The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-19
MARINE COURT-pARI |.
Important to Landlords and Tenants
An Interesting Decision.

An Interesting DECISION.
Before Judge JOachaimsen
Jacob and Francis Becker vs.. Patrick and Michael
Keogh.-Thls case, which has occupied the Court
for the past two days, tried before in 1870,
resulting in verdict in favor OF the defendants,
but the General Term granting new trial, it came
up again OIL Monday, continuing through yester-
day. The action is brought to recover a months
rent Of the premises % Lamartine place. The
premises were purchased in the Fall OF 1869 by the
paintins, anu Immediately thereafter rented to
the defendants Tor the purposes OF dwelling at
the yearly rental OF 81, 100 payable monthly in
advance. According to defendants evidence they
made deposit q $25 to secure the house, but
afterwards returned to the plaintiffs and informed
them that they had heard the house bore bad
name, requesting back their deposit; that this
paints refused, saying that such reports were all
''moonshine," that the house had been occupied
by respectable widow lady that the reports were
circulated by some parties who wanted to run
stand between the defendants Of all harm; that
aiterward, at the signing OF the lease, similar
conversation took place between the parties, with
the addition that plaintiffs threatened to sue UNI
less defendants took the house as agreed, ana that
under these circumstances the lease was executed.
The defendants further testify that upon taking
possession they found that their fears were justi-
fed; that they were disturbed nights by parties
driving up to the house and inquiring for the
former occupants, and on being denied admit
lance using vile language, and that in OTHER ways
they discovered that the house mad been used by
its last occupants Tor dsreputable purposes and
that finally, on the LIST of December they went to
plaintiffs place and rendered the keys, stat
ing their reasons, and that paintilfs
refusing TO receive them and threatening to sue,
they came away, leaving the keys on the desk.
They, therefore, set up the defence IN this suit that
the disreputable character the house had attained
was known to the plantiffs at the time. The evil
dence given on plaintlfs' part denied any such
knowledge, and went to contradict the fact that
the house had any such reputation, pantins testi.
Tying tnat they, with their families, occupied the
house in January following defendants removal and
found no such objections. Some OF the neighbOrs
and policeman ol the preclnt were called TO this
point. 1t also appeared by plaintiffs evidence that
defendants, after leaving the keys, came al got
them again and endcavOred to rent the house TO
another party. But this, defendants say, was at
painting request. At the conclusion OF the evil
dence motion was made that the Court direct a
verdict in plaintiffs favor. The Court
granted the motion, saying. in the course OF
It's review OF the case -"rhis Is an action not Tor
use and occupation. 1t is an action upon written
contract by the defendants to hire certain premises
from the plaintiffs at certain rent payable in
advance, and under which contract the defendants
went into possession and renamed in possession
payable. In the ordinary acceptation OF the term
'raudr there was none In this case. There Is no
objection made to the house itself or to plaintiffs
authority TO let Ii, and none was suggested as to
its reputation when the deposit was made. At the
time OF signing the lease objection was made as to
its character, but the lease was signed nevcrthe-
less and the fact OF no complaint being thereafter
made until the LIST OF December a period of three
months, and when the months rent was already
contract on the part OF the defendants. The jury
Will render verdict in favor of plaintiffs for
Sl71 81" For plaintiffs, d. McAdam; for DEFENDANTS,
Mr.. Estes.