305
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
February 25, 1899.
of the Jervis Estate, who shortly afterwards pulled down the school, and treated the site as part of the Jervis Estate. The plaintiff, Mr. Brown, became the vicar in 1881, and had since that year acted as manager of the school. In 1896 the Reversion and General Securities Company, Limited, took possession of the estate for a term of years under a mortgage deed, and sold their interest to the defendant, Captain Willett, a director of the company. About 1898 a difference arose between the schoolmaster and the vicar and churchwardens, and Captain Willett appointed Mr. Patterson as his agent to take possession of the school premises. N otice was served on the vicar and churchwardens, requiring them to deliver up the school, but they refused to do so, and Sir. Patterson and others, acting under the authority of Captain Willett, took forcible possession by breaking open the door of the school. The plaintiffs and their predecessors had been in possession of the school since 1869, and Captain Willett had not shown that he had any right forcibly to interfere with the plaintiffs’ long-establis&ed possessory title. He entertained no doubt, in point of fact, that an exchange of sites to-׳k place in 1869; and it seemed to him that the Statute of Limitations was an answer to the defendants’ claim. He could see nothing to prevent the Statute running since 1869. Under these circumstances, he should make the injunction perpetual and award the plaintiffs £10 and costs.
Mr. Rawlinson, Q.O., and Mr. Edwardes Jones appeared for the plaintiffs ; while Mr. Cutler, Q.C., and Mr. Lynn represented the defendants.
SOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT.
February 14.
(Before His Honour Judge Addison.)
A LENIENT BAILIFF: INSUFFICIENT DISTRAINT.
COBBETT V. ELLIS.
William Ellis, a certificated bailiff and house and estate agent, of Rotherhithe, was sued by Mr. Pitt Cobbett, who sought to recover damages for negligently and insufficiently distraining upon the goods of William Scutts, at East Dulwich, there being sufficient goods at the house in question to satisfy plaintiff’s full claim and costs.
Mr. Henrique, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin, solicitor, for the defendant.
From the statement of the plaintiff’s counsel, it appeared that Mr. Pitt Cobbett was the owner of 259, Lordship-lane, which was tenanted by Scutts, a solicitor. Defendant w־as handed a warrant to distrain on Scutt’s goods for £14 rent owing and costs. The defendant went in and although there were ample goods in the house he seized only sufficient to realise £12 12s. 6d. at auction. The result was that plaintiff received only £5 15s. 6d., and he now sued for the balance to make up the £14. When defendant was written to concerning the error he attempted to agiin distrain, bu; was informed by the tenant that it would be illegal to do so. He then wrote to the plaintiff saying that he seized goods which he thought would fetch £21 3s., the amount of the debt and costs, but as they had not done so, plaintiff must sue the tenant, Scutts, for the balance. That was impossible, said counsel, because Scutts was a bankrupt.
His Honour: Do you say defendant is liable for an error of judgment!
Counsel: It is more than an error of judgment ; it is negligence.
Evidence was given hearing out this statement.
The defendant stated that he seized goods which he thought would realise £21 3s. He was deceived somewhat in the furniture, which appeared of much more value than it really was. He was very cautious not to over-d'istrain, because he knew the class of man he was deabng with, and had been threatened by him with an action should he seize more goods than were necessary.
His Honour: A lawyer is a difficult person tc meet at any time, and especially when he is in dire distress and his goods are being seized. They may frighten most people, but they ought not to alarm bailiffs.
In giving judgment, his Honour said that evidently defendant had been too indulgent to Ibis incensed lawyer, and plaintiff had suffered damage in consequence. He therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff for £6 17s. 6d. and costs, remarking that he believed defendant had acted with perfect honesty and good faith in the transaction.
Judgment was entered accordingly.
NOTICE.
The ESTATES GAZETTE should be delivered the first thing on Saturday morning. If difficulty occurs in obtaining copies from local newsagents, order direct from the office, No. 6, St. Bride-street, Fleet-street, London, or any of Messrs. W. H. SMITH and SONS’ Bookstalls.
any evidence on which the learned Judge was justified in arriving at the conclusion that there *had been an agreement to repair on the part of the defendants? Next came the question, if there was an agreement to repair, Was there any evidence which justified the Judge in finding that the landlord had made default in fulfilling his contractual obligation? That involved the question whether the landlord had notice of any want of repair. Then there was the further question, a very ■wide and important question, how far a person who was not a party to a contract to repair, like the infant plaintiff in this case, was entitled to sue in respect of the consequences of a breach of the contract to repair. As to the first question, he thought there was evidence of an agreement to repair. He referred to the evidence of the witnesses called for the plaintiff, who stated that the defendants’ agent or collector had undertaken at the time of the letting that the premises should be kept in repair, and also the evidence of Mr. Mercer and their agent, to the effect that, though they never actually agreed to keep premises in repair, yet in fact they always did whatever repairs were necessary. There seemed to him to be an admission that in the usual course of things landlords did repairs in tenancies of this kind. He thought the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that there was an express undertaking to repair, and the defendants’ evidence was sufficient to support an implied agreement to repair. Then the second question was, What was the effect o'f such an undertaking by a landlord ? Did he commit a breach of his contractural obligation merely because he did not repair in some case where the event proved that repairs had been necessary? Oi was it necessary that his attention should be drawn to the fact that the premises were out of repair, and that repairs were needed? In his opinion the latter was the true proposition. Then was there evidence that the defendants' attention had been drawn in this ease to the necessity of repairs? He thought the learned Judge had confused a notice given by Broggi as to the fireplace with notice as to the state of the floor before the second accident. On a review of the whole evidence, he thought that the proper conclusion was that in September, 1896, at the time of the earlier accident, the defendants’ attention was called to the state of the fireplace, but after that time the defendants’ attention was never called to any defect in the state of the premises, neither, indeed, had any of the plaintiff’s witnesses after that time had their own attention drawn to any such defect. It was said that in view of what happened afterwards the defendants ought to have discovered in September, 1896, that the floor was defective. But it was impossible to attribute to the landlords knowledge of defeets which had not struck the notice even of tl e tenants themselves. He therefore came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on which the learned Judge could find a breach of the defendants’ contractual obligation, because, assuming an undertaking to repair, no notice had been given to the landlords of any need of repairs. In his opinion there was no ground for entering judgment against the defendants, and the appeal must therefore be allowed. As to the third question, the wider question to which he had referred, how far the failure to discharge a contractual obligation to repair could give a cause of action to a person who was not a party to the contract, that question would have to be decided in some other case.
The Lords Justices concurred.
Mr. Marshall Hall, Q.C., said he did not ask for costs.
Judgment accordingly.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Mr. Justice Bruce.)
February 21.
A TRESPASS CASE.
BROWN AND OTHERS V. PATTERSON AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Justice Bruce, in delivering judgment, said this was an action brought by the Rev. G. B. Brown, vicar of St. Saviour’s, Aston, near, Stone, Staffordshire, and others, for an injunction restraining Mr. Patterson and Captain J. S. Willett from retaining possession of the premises used as the National School at Aston, of which they were the trustees, and damages for alleged trespass. In August last an interim injunction was granted, and the question he had to decide was whether that injunction should be made perpetual. It appeared that in July, 1848, Edward Jervis, Viscount St. Vincent, by deed enrolled under the authority of the School Sites Act, 1841. granted and conveyed to the vicar and churchwardens and the Archdeacon of Stafford a plot of land to enable a school to be built. A school was erected and used as a National School until 1869, when a new7 school was erected on another site on the Jervis Estate. The scholars ׳were removed from the old school to the new, the tenant for life of the Jervis Estate, who was then under age, taking part in the festivities which accompanied the change. The old school building was taken possession of by the trustees
to the size of oxen and sheep of the day, and the lecturer concluded this part of his subject by stating that those who fondly clung to old traditions might, he thought, console themselves that “ the roast beef of old England ” was not absolutely a myth.
Another important question arising in the period under discussion was the economic and agricultural results of an Act of the Convention Parliament of 1688, not only permitting but giving (for the first time in English history) a bounty on the exportation of wheat, barley and rye. These bounties had been applauded by Arthur Young, Burke and Malthus, but denounced by Adam Smith and by modern writers. The subject of the Corn Laws was, however, a proverbially thorny one; and the lecturer expressed his agreement with Mr. Lecky that the great revolutions of opinion whioh had occurred respecting them “ impressed upon the judicious student a deep sense of the fallibility of political reasonings.”
legal ^rnreeiiiitgs.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.
February 21.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Justice A. L. Smith, and Lord Justice Collins.)
REPAIRS TO A HOUSE: ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENCE.
BROGGI V. ROBINS, SNELL AND GORE.
This was an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Day at the trial of the action without a jury, reported in the Estates Gazette of May 28, 1898. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendants’ breach of contract to keep a certain tenement in repair. The plaintiff was Dina Broggi, the infant child of Davide Broggi. The case put forward on behalf of the plaintiff was as follow's:—In July, 1895, Davide Broggi took two rooms at 33, Dean-street, Soho, from the defendants, Messrs. Robins, Snell and Gore, house and estate agents, 205, Wardour-street, W., on a w'eekly tenancy at 8s. 6d. per week, and the defendants agreed to do all necessary repairs. In September, 1896, a part of the fireplace fell on one of Broggi’s children and injured his leg. After that Broggi called the attention of the defendants’ collector to the condition of the floor, and asked to have it repaired. The collector then promised that w'hatever was necessary in the way of repairs should be done, and a new7 plank was put in the floor, but the floor ׳was not sufficiently repaired, and on February 13, 1897, the plaintiff, a child of five years old, was sitting in a chair in front of the fire, when a plank of the floor gave way, and she was thrown into the fire. The child upset in her fall a saucepan of boiling soup, by wnich she wras scalded and disfigured for life. It ׳was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the accident happened in consequence of the defective and unsafe condition of the floor, which defective and unsafe condition had been brought to the knowledge of the defendants. The defendants’ case was that there had been no agreement on their part to repair, and further, that they had had no notice of the premises being in any defective condition. The fireplace w7as repaired after the earlier accident, and no defect in the floor had then been discovered. Mr. Justice Day found that there w7as an agreement to repair, and that even if there was no express agreement to repair there was a usage to do all necessary repairs in tenancies of this kind, and he found that the defendants had neglected to do necessary repairs after notice had been given to them of the defective state of the premises. He accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff for £100, but he ordered a stay of execution pending an appeal. The defendants appealed.
Mr. Marshall Hall, Q.C., and Mr. R. E. Moore appeared for the defendants in support of the appeal; Mr. Rentoul, Q.C., and Mr. Abinger for the plaintiff.
The Court allowed the appeal.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the plaintiff was an infant child suing by her next friend, and the case set up on her behalf was that she was the child of Davide Broggi, w7ho was tenant to the defendants of certain premises, which were let to him in July, 1895, on a weekly tenancy at the rent of 8s. 6d. a week, that one of the terms of the agreement of tenancy was that the landlords should keep the premises in repair, that they failed to keep them in repair, and that in February, 1897, when she w7as silting on a chair in front of the fire, owing to the defective state of the w7ood of the flooring, the legs of her chair went through the floor, and she was thrown against the fireplace and suffered serious injuries. A claim to damages was made on her behalf, on the ground that her injuries w7ere caused by the neglect of the defendants to fulfil their obligation to keep the premises in repair. Three questions arose for consideration. The first was this—Was there
scene was chosen and endowed with the richest ornamentation. Thus the “ Loves of the Gods ” was ordered from Boucher, and “ Scenes from Don Quixote” from Charles Ooypel. The influence of Boucher preponderated at the Beauvais manufactory.
A general diminution, then, is the chief characteristic of the Louis Quinze period. Fauteuils, tables, couches and cabinets were on a smaller scale ; while the novelties, the encoigneur, the guéridon or occasional stand, and the lady’s toilet table or cabinet were all upon tiny models.
Though the work of Riesener and his celebrated ormolu mounter, Gouthiere, belong to the next period, there is one piece by the | former which claims mention here, as it was made in 1769. It is known as the “Bureau : du Roi,” and is of marquetry, with patterns and groups in medallions. The legs and feet are j encased in stockings and shoes of ormolu. The ! bureau is crowned by an ornamental galley, j flanked by female figures, in the centre of which i is a clock also flanked and surmounted by figures. The remaining mounts consist of foliage and wreaths. The bureau, which is 5jft. long, is now in the Louvre.
One more famous cabinet-maker should be named, Pierre Denizol, who was Master in 1740. He is represented at Kensington by a charming little commode ornamented with marquetry.
There is also one further novelty to l e named, that is the artistic frames, or fire-screens, made for subject pieces of tapestry. These were made in carved and gilt wood, formed into ' sheaves of wands, supported on dolphins, the top consisting of an oval medallion with figures, fruits and wreaths.
In parting with this period it is well to remember that its influence and interest are by no means exhausted ; as the first great awakening in England is distinctly traceable through Chippendale’s “Cabinet-maker” to the styie Louis XV.
The Cabriole leg in chairs, consoles and tables utterly superseded the straight terminalshaped leg which marks the Louis XIV. style ; and even in the cabinets there are few, if any, examples of the straight, tapering legs previously in vogue.
(To be continued.)
THE HI8T0RY OF AGRICULTURE.
The second of the series of lectures on Agricultural History, which is being delivered before the University of Cambridge, by Sir Ernest Clarke, was given on February 16, at St. John’s College. The period discussed was the latter half of the 17th century, when after the excitements of the Civil War, agricultural improvement began—at first very slowly—to assert itself. The lecturer pointed out that in the days of Charles II., the potato appeared to have been regarded chiefly in the light of a basis for toothsome dishes like “pastes, puddings and cakes, potato cheese cakes and very-good custards,” to quote a pamphlet by John Forster (1664), who urged vainly its more general cultivation. John Worlidge, who wrote his “ Systema Agriculturae ” in 1668, said : ' I do not hear that it hath yet been essayed whether potatoes may not be propagated in great quantities for food for swine and other cattle.” For a considerable time the potato made very little progress as an esculent, and indeed it was not until the end of the last century that, under pressure of the Napoleonic wars, and the national anxiety about our food supplies, the potato crop began to assume a prominent position in the economy of British husbandry.
The lecturer discussed in detail the question of the breeding and fattening of live stock in the latter part of the 17th century, and adduced evidence to show that the carcases slaughtered at Smithfield were not, as stated by McCulloch, and on his authority by Macaulay, “ diminutive,” as compared with the present day. He showed that McCulloch ׳had quoted from Sir Frederick Eden, Eden from Sir John Sinclair, and that none of them had appreciated the exact significance of Tables compiled by the famous economist, Charles Davenant, in a rare pamphlet of 1710 in the British Museum. As a matter of fact, there was reason for thinking that the carcases sold at Smithfield in 1710 were as heavy as those at the present day7; though they did not, of course, “ cut up ” so well as those of modern times; and having submitted his arguments to that high authority, Sir John Lawes, Sir John had expressed his opinion that it was quite a mistake to suppose that the cattle and sheep of past times were such miserable creatures as some persons were disposed to make out. One of the great■ aims of the famous breeder, Bakewell, was to “get beasts to weigh where you want them to weigh,” in the roasting instead of the boiling pieces; and the object of all rearers of cattle had been to get shape rather than size, and quality rather than quantity.
Instances were given from books of the period, and especially from Defoe’s Tours, as