The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-06-09
A Case on Trial in the
Common Pleas Court.
Plaintiff Alleges That Cove
nantS We're Broken.
They Provided Lessee Should Not
Assign Lease or Sub-Let.

A jury in Judge Wilbur's court had to
hear testimony in a case in which good
deal more law than fact was involved this
morning.
The case was that Of Richard w. Farr
vs.. George ii. Kenyon, and the SUIT was
brought to recover nominal damages of
800 for breach of certin covenants OF
lease. In May, 1891, William Band leased
20 DIR. Kenyon IA piece OF land between
ltimwood avenue and Potters avenue. for
period OF nine years and IL months.
One OF the provisions in the lease was
that the lessee should not assign the lease
or underlet the demised premises or any
part thereof, without the consent of tn ,
lessee in writing. Another provision in
the lease was that the leased promises
should always be used in manner that
was satisfactory to the lessons. There was
provision that in case of the breaking of
these covenants the lessor might re-enter
and terminate the lease.
Ihe main matter Of difference between
tho parties was whether this provision
against undertaking applied to the letting
oil stores In a building which DIR. Kenyon
had built on the leased land and which
was not TO become the property of the
lessor until the lease expired.
The plaiDtih introduced some witnesses
the building erected by him to Mrs.
Sarah j. Hawkins, and that people con
greRated on the sidewalk and much to the
dissatisfaction OF the present owner of the
land business was carried on on Sunday
there. DIR. Kenyon was called by plain
tins counsel and he stated that the
premises were first let 60 a man by the
name of Joslin who sold out his business
To Mrs. Hawkins. The doctor had given
the latter two weeks rent so that she be-
gan paying rent the first of March Of the
present year.
When the testimony for the plaintiff
was all in Cyrus NJ. Van Slyck of, counsel
for DIR. Kenyon, asked that the jury be
directed TO return n verdict for the dcfen-
dant as none of the charges of breach of
covenant had been proven. He main
tained that the letting of building
erected on land leased when the building
was built by the lessee and not to become
the property Of the lessor until over nine
years had expired could not be held to be
q violation OF tho covenant not To under
let. The owner OF the premises had
furthermore approved the letting to Joslin
and there was no new letting to Mrs
Hawkins but even had there been new
letting counsel maintained that once the
right or entry on account of the breach of
covenant not to underlet was waived no
advantage under that covenant could be
afterward claimed. AS TO the congregat-
ing OF people on the sidewalk it was
argued this was matter beyond the con-
troll OF DIR. Kenyon anu one that came
within the jurisdiction of tho police.
Clarence A. Aldrich. counsel for the
plaintiff, argued that the law points adj
vanced were novel ones. Ho maintained
that the language of the lease was definite
and must include buildings erected on
the strip Of land leased, also that the au-
thorities did not support tho contention
hat ets l.t
of covenant for undertaking was waived
It was waived for all time Mr.. Aldrich
claimed that the provision in the lease in
regard TO the use OF the promises in u sat
isfactory manner must be strictly, con
strued. 1t was not what was reasona-
bly, satisfactory TO the lessor that the lease
said.
Though Judge Wilbur expressed sur
prise that the case had not been taken TO
the Appellate Court on an agreed state
ment of facts he denied the motion for
verdict.
William Band. the ancestor in title of
the plaintiff was sworn and asked as to
conversations with DR. Kenyon previous
TO the making Of the lease, but the coun-
sci for plaintiff objected and the question
was ruled out MIR. Band testified that
he knew when the lease was made that
DIR. Kenyon was going to build on the
lot and had him agree to build tho same
klnu OF u lrOnJ as WltnesS nau on an al
joining building. Mr.. Aldrich objected
to questions as to conversations after
lease was made and his objections were
oyerruled and exceptions taken.
DIR. Kenyon was again witness and
testified the object of his leasing the
premises was we'll known, namely to put
up building upon it, The building
had no cellar and rested on posts.
The jury brought in verdict for the
q 9fondant.