The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1874-05-24
COLUMBIA, s. C.
Sun lay Morning. May "a. 1874.
InsuficIonoy OF the Law Of Landlord
and Tenant.

We have received Communication,
in writing. from the counsel OF N. e
Edwards, in relation to our views OF
the result Of the case of Edwards us.
Mooney. published in our issue oi
Wednesday. It is too long for publi.
cation, and contains matter which hai
no bearing upon the point which wat
the real issus In the case when it was
before the court. and which was the
subject OF onr remarks. Our cor
respondent dwellss with par.ioularity
npon The payments made b. Edwards.
showing that his rsns had been paid in
full to the 9th OF September. 1873.
and submits that be had fully com.
piled with his lease, and was entitled
to wait till October g., 1873, before
paying again. That ia q question oi
law which would appropriately have
been dtsous ssed before the courts, bat
which has nothing whatever to do with
tho difference between our correspond:
ent and ourselves. Be it as it may.
the pointi1 upon, which, the plaintiff
recovered his verdict was 'shis-that
the Trial Jastioe bad no Jurisdiction
TO eject any kind of tenantt, except SO
tenant at will" or ., tenant .'ander
contract to serve another; either as a
domestio servant or common Iaborer,
"or otherwise;" that the words "or
otherwise" referred to The kind OF SER
Vioe and not to the kind Of tenancy.
That was: the decision. Whether i.
vas right Or wrong, as matter of law.
is not for us TO say. But, viewed az q
construction OF language. it seems to
Us to be right. The responsibility for
whatevet evil may result from sueh a
law. Of course, rests upon the law
makers, b'sHG ndl o3s1'i'rNr =
: " "te Aeae.; .;a;iA..f,>e sr',l.i-,n pd iNtllr.
>tous correspondent takes issue with
us upon the ofTNss.t Nsst q efnSsass7s & ! article. He
says ,.:i,.j ,ir .silii, "ou 1g .a t.u
''It is calculated to- mislead many
persons, and cause Haheni' 10 suppose
that there is no law to enable the
landlord to get rid ~ q tenant who
does, not pay rent. !Saoh: is not the
{sot. The same remedies exist, since
the decision that existed before, and
mnoh better, cheaper. and more expe
ditiops. and lis found in ,6eotion 25.
Page 1893, Revised Statutes. not Sec
non ~, which wes relied upon In this
tase and ovef-ruled,"'
We may agree that inaccnrscy in q
matter Of spoh widespread interest
would be unfortunate and perhaps in
exousable. We have! examined the
section referred to, bat find in it
nothing which contravenes our con-
olusion as Expressed Wednesday. and
which our learned correspondent
thinks Calculated to mislead." There
is nothing in Section 25 which pro.
yidss for the ejeotment Of tenants for
non-payment OF rent. It does pro.
vide for the ejeetment Of tenants who
holt over after their leases haye ex.
pired. And where a lease, expires be-
cause Of nppspayment ef Sent. then
the tenant may b6,sisoted' ~ the She.
riff. upon the warrant q Of two Trial
Justices and twelve freeholders. But
the cause which then confsrs iurisdic.
.ion is, We are advised. holding over
after the determination Of the lease, and
aot non.psyment of rent. Even a
bender OF rent in such case would not
prevent an ejeotment.
Whatever were tho terms of the
written lease in the present case. whe.
ther or not they were binding on the
parties who continued to deal with
each other after its expiration, pre-.
cisely rs they did during it's oontinu.
ance, whether or not Edwards remain.
ing in possession of the premises be
went into under the written lease, and
paying the money in advance fol-
several months after the alleged c1pi.
ration OF tho lease, Except for tho
Last month, in strict conformity to its
tcrms, would raise the presumption
that be still held under the snme terms,
are legal questions with which we
have nothing to do. The ground taken