568
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
April 8, 1899.
tiffs had asked for their pound of flesh, and if the law gave it to them they must have it.’’
“ My deeds upon mv head ! I cnve the law,
The penalty and forf it of my bond.”
As a matter of fact, though “ Treloar v. Bigge ” decided that, in the case of a covenant like that we have quoted, the lessee, having asked the lessor for his consent, and that consent having been unreasonably withheld, might assign without the lessor’s consent, “ Barrow v. Isaacs ” is an authority, if an authority were wanted, for holding that where the contract is express that the consent must be “first obtained,” the Court cannot delete those words and construe the contract as if they had never been inserted. In Daniels’s “ Leases : Principles and Points ” (p. 127 et seq.), “Treloar v. Bigge,” “Barrow v. Isaacs,” and other authorities on the point involved in the recent case in the Court■ of Appeal are succinctly discussed, and the author quotes part of Lord Esher’s judgment in “ Bar-row v. Isaacs.” There was, said his Lordship, “ a stipulation in the superior lease which required that the landlord’s consent in writing was necessary to an underletting. That stipula” tion also provided that, although the consent of the landlord was necessary, he was not arbitrarily to refuse his consent. But, as the matter stood, his consent was never asked. . . It is impossible, to my mind, to conceive that any reasonable man in the City of London could have made any objection to the sub-tenant.
■ ■ • • Nevertheless, it is obvious that there has been a breach of the covenant. The lessor’s consent was not asked. There is a breach of the covenant, and upon a breach he has the right of re-entry. Therefore, at law, it is impossible to doubt that the plaintiff’s right of re-entry was made out. He was entitled at law to recover against the defendant the possession of the premises, and a Court of Equity would not, under the circumstances, give the latter relief.”
A much more curious and intricate landlord and tenant dispute than those we have referred to above was that which arose in an action at the Northumberland Assizes against a tenant for damages for not giving up possession of a farm at the expiration of his tenancy. An action had previously been brought against him by the landlord for recovery of the land, in which double rent was claimed under 4 Geo. II., c. 28 (the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730, which gives an action for double value for wilfully holding over after notice), and in that action the landlord obtained judgment for possession and for a sum for the use and occupation of the farm. Before the term of the holding over tenant had expired, the landlord had relet the farm, and the new tenant not having been able to get possession had, after the former action, obtained compensation from his lessor. _ That a landlord who has paid such compensation can recover the amount against the tenant who refused to quit is clear ; but the defendant objected that the landlord, having recovered damages for holding over in the previous action, could not maintain the present one. Mr. Justice Ridley held that the causes of action were distinct; but we confess that we should like to see the point further considered. To be sure, mesne profits are not recovered under a contract, and that the claim in the action under notice could be put as for damages for the tenant’s breach of contract in not giving up possession at the time when he had agreed to leave the farm. But it seems to us that to allow a landlord to recover against his tenant both under the Act of 1730 and by means of an action for damages savours somewhat of oppression. Generally speaking, a man ought not 1o be made to suffer twice for the same wrong.
A notice to quit need not be served personally on a tenant, but if it is sent by post it certainly ought to be by registered letter. It was the omission to register such a notice which gave rise to the litigation in “ Eton College v. Waters” (Estates Gazette, April 1), though, in spite of this, the plaintiffs’ evidence was accepted, and they obtained judgment for possession, with costs. From our report it will be seen that the clerk who posted the notice was called, and said that he had instructions to register it, but he “registered the wrong letter.” Of course, accidents of the kind will happen in the best regulated businesses. Their results are often inconvenient and expensive, and the occasional risks of the post office were exemplified in a very curious way in the old case of “Papillon v. Brunton,” which is quoted in “ Woodfall” at p. 381 of the last (16th) edition.
Hí0al Capíes.
By a Barrister.
[The writer will answer any question relating to real property law, or to the practice of Agents. Auctioneers, and Surveyors, under “ Queries and Replies.”]
There is a very old joke which deals with .the way in which an old-time philosopher was routed by a law student. The wise man had publicly declared that he could and would answer any question put to him by anybody on any subject, and the young “ apprentice ” put him to shame by merely asking him “ whether goods taken in withernam were repleviable ?” ״As a matter of fact, some branches of our law have always abounded and continue to abound in puzzles, whilst there are other points which could very possibly be as correctly decided by a man of business of ordinary intelligence as by a lawyer. The construction of a covenant in a lease, for example, may often be a simple matter of common sense. Precedents are not of much use unless the wording of the two covenants to be compared are identical or practically identical; the question to be asked is, What was the intention of the parties as appearing from the words they used reasonably interpreted ?
In “Gunter v. Jarrett,” which we report in another column, the dispute was as to the meaning of a. covenant by a lessee that he would not at any time during the term use, or permit to be used, the premises, No. 20, Redcliffe-square, “for the purpose of any trade, sale, auction, exhibition, manufactory, asylum for lunatics or idiots, or school, or for any purpose whatsoever other than as a private dwelling house or professional residence, nor do, or suffer to be done, any act or thing upon the said premises which may be or grow to the annoyance or damage of the lessor or his tenants of lands or houses adjoining.” The point for Mr. Justice Stirling to decide was whether in the face of this covenant the house could be used as a residence for the nurses employed by the Guardians of the St. George’s Union at their Infirmary in the Fulham-road. He held that the house could not be so used, and common sense and reason say the same thing. Can a house, occupied by 50 or 60 uniformed nurses, properly be called a private residence? No “ authorities ” are required to answer the question. “ To bring 50 or 60 nurses from an infirmary, and board them together in one house,” said his Lordship, in granting the injunction asked for by the plaintiff, “was not using the house as a private dwelling house any more than would be the case if a large tradesman in Knightsbridge were to take a house in Belgrave-square for the purpose of boarding 50 or 60 of his employés there.”
“ The Eastern Telegraph Company, Limited v. Dent and others” (Estates Gazette, April 1) was another case in which the construction of a covenant was in question. A lease to the defendants contained a covenant by them “ not to underlet, assign or part with the possession of the said rooms or offices or premises, or any part thereof, to any person or persons without the consent in writing of the company for that purpose first obtained, such consent "not to be unreasonably withheld”; and there was a proviso for re-entry upon breach of any of the covenants. After the granting of the lease, and in spite of the covenant, the defendants did underlet or part with the possession of part of the premises to Messrs. Burn and Berridge, a firm of solicitors, to whom no possible objection could have been taken as tenants. But the defendants did not ask the plaintiffs for their consent to Messrs. Burn and Berridge becoming tenants of the room in question, and the plaintiffs thereupon claimed to re-enter as upon a breach of covenant. Mr. Justice Kennedy had decided that they had a right to do this", and that he could not give equitable relief against the forfeiture, and Lords Justices A. L. Smith, Collins and Roiner now confirmed his decision. It was stated that the defendants desired to appeal to the House of Lords, but we confess that we do not see how they are going to get over the “ reason of the thing,” or the well-known case of “Barrow v. Isaacs.”
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, Fleebstreet, London, or any of Messrs. W. H. SMITH and SONS’ J Bookstalls.
If a lessee expressly covenants not to underlet without the consent of his lessor, and does underlet without that consent, would not anyone say ■primd facie that he must take the consequences, which were in this case a forfeiture? Certainly, Lord Justice A. L. Smith said that “no one could read the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy without seeing that, unless he had been forced to do so, he would not have given judgment for the plaintiffs. For himself he (the Lord Justice) would say that if he could see his way out of it he would not give judgment for the plaintiffs. The plain-
The much admired Madeleine was begun by Napoleon as a “Temple of Glory”; and the present structure was reared at the Restoration upon his foundations. His great scheme, however, was to unite the Tuileries and Louvre by buildings which should mask the difference in level ; and the first stone was laid by the great architect Brongniart on March 24, 1808.
To conclude the history of the Jacob family, at the Restoration Desmalter became “ Fournisseur de la Couronne ” ; and was a witness of the so-called restorations of Louis Philippe, who separated cabinets into their two parts, and set each upon its own legs and often supplied new parts, leaving only tne panels original. Long ere this, however, in 1825, at the age of 55, he ceded the management of his business to his son, G. Alfonse Jacob, who made much furniture for the Tuileries and Versailles, besides St. Cloud. In 1847, the business was sold to Janselme, and is still carried on by that firm. The firm of Jacob Frères had gained a gold medal for furniture at the first Exhibition in 1801.
Meantime, the great Clodion, whose noble sculptures for chimney-pieces and wall decorations had been the rage under Louis XVI., was neglected and forgotten, except that he obtained an occasional commission to supply figures for clocks. Clodion, in fact, had nothing in common with Greece and Rome, or the fantastic adaptations of the classic style wiiich produced the incongruities deplored by Berekeim and Madame de Genlis. He was the one great artist of Louis XVI.'s reign, with the style of which his works matched so well.
The rectangular commodes which he ornamented in the later period of his success with engaged columns, prepared the way for the false and stiff style, which, through the instigation of Roentgen, aided by stiff palmettos and meagre foliage, constituted the Greek art of the first Empire.
The decline of lavish and exuberant ornamentation may be traced back to the influence of the Marquise de Pompadour, who took a distaste to the twisted endive, the rosette borders, _ and hanging wreaths of flowers which prevailed during her younger days.
(To be continued.)
Shrewsbury Bull Show and Sale.—This annual event, under the management of Messrs. Alfred Mansell and Co., took place on the 21st ult., and a capital sale must be recorded at good, steady, paying prices, without anything sensational, though no less than 10 bulls were bought by foreign agents for exportation. About 100 bulls were catalogued, and the judging was in the able hands of Mr. Thomas Fenn and Mr. Arthur Stretton, whose awards gave general satisfaction. In the class for shorthorn bulls not exceeding 16 months, there were 33 entries, the first and second prizes eventually falling to Mr. T. S. Minton’s Montford Junior and Montford Jorrocks, the reserve ticket going to Messrs. Evans’s white bull Alpine Duke. In the class for shorthorn bulls over 16 months old, Messrs. Evans’s Brookside secured first honours, and Mr. AVatkin Jones’s Aldsworth Lad, the second. Hereford Bulls not over 16 months were a good class of 20 entries, first honours going to Mr. Alfred Tanner’s Honest Tom, and second to Mr. George Crane’s Foreman. In the older bulls, Mr. Oakley secured the reb ribbon with Gipsy Hero, a good-looking son of Coroner, 16650. The buyers included the Duke of Sutherland, Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart., Mr. John Naylor, Mr. Nathaniel West-head, Mr. Bukley, Mr. Sargeant, Mr. Wood Acton, and several dairy farmers from Cheshire and Staffordshire. Prices were as follows :■— Shorthorn Bulls:	Mr. Minton’s Montford
Junior (1st prize), 34 guineas; Mr. Minton’s Montford Jorrocks (2nd prize), 28 guineas; Messrs. Evans’s Alpine Duke, 25 guineas ; Mr. Gittin’s Premier Pansy, 24 guineas; Earl Powis’s Cadvan, 22 guineas; Mr. Bickley’s Magician, 28 guineas; Mr. Thomas’s Rover, 27 guineas ; Earl Powis’s Carrog, 20 guineas ; Mr. Thomas’s Red Prince, 21 guineas; Mr. Nevett’s Duke of Fawsley, 29 guineas; Mr. J. T. Nickel’s Village Knight, 35 guineas; Mr. Jones’s, Aldsworth Lad, 30 guineas; Mr. AV. Thomas’s Captain Gwynne, 34 guineas ; Messrs. Evans’s Brookside, 31 guineas ; Airs. Radcliffe’s Lord Rankin, 22 guineas ; Air. Webb’s Butterfly Prince, 21 guineas ; Air. Robert’s Sutton Hero, 22 guineas ; Air. Bickley’s Randilow Swell, 22 guineas. Shorthorn cows sold up to 26 guineas. Hereford bulls: Air. A. Tanner’s Honest Tom (1st prize), 30 guineas ; Air. Alinton’s Alontford Jack, 23 guineas; Air. Tanner’s Harold, 29 guineas; Mr. Alinton’s Montford Joe, 24 guineas,־ Air. Groves’s Skylight, 19 guineas; Air. Alinton s Alontford Joyful, 27 guineas; Air. Oakley’s Snowdrift, 20 guineas; Air. Tanner s Hamlet, 24 guineas ; Air. Groves’s Best Alan, 23 guineas ; Air. Alinton’s Alontford Juryman, 20 guineas; Air. Groves’s Twyford Boy, 20 guineas; Air. J. Crane’s Wonder, 19¿ guineas; Air. Oakley’s Simon, 19¿ guineas; Air. J. Crane’s Foreman (2nd prize), 25 guineas; Air. Tanner’s Heidseick, 20 guineas. Several polled Angus bulls were sold between 17¿ and 25 guineas.
Jfurnita (TO atrô
XXXI.
THE EA1PIRE.
No sooner was Napoleon Bonaparte made Consul in the last year of the 18th century than he set about providing furniture for Malmaison, the order for which was given to Jacob Desmalter, while his old protégé Percier was chosen architect, though by a wonderful piece of luck. Madame Bonaparte had entrusted to Percier the fitting-up of her hotel in the Rue de la Victoire at the contract price of 40,000 francs ; but as she at the same time stipulated “ above all everything of the best,” the little bill was for 130,000 francs. Napoleon, however, forgave him, and employed him in restoring the Tuileries and the Louvre. AVith Fontaine he also undertook the rehabilitation of Ccmpiégne, St. Cloud, Fontainebleau, Versailles, and the Elysée. The partners again called in Desmalter, who thus received a plenitude of orders, augmented by others, for the foreign work of the popular architects.
Jacob Desmalter and his employés thereupon turned out fauteuils for the salon, chairs, couches, divans, bedsteads, tables, commodes, secretaires, bookcases, lavoirs, jardinieres, mirrors, clocks, cradles, tripods, lustres, and girandoles. Meantime Boucher’s panels and Durer’s drawings could be obtained for a trifle at the secondhand stalls on the quays of the Seine.
Berekeim, writing in 1806, describes the apartments of an elegant Parisian as comprising “ an ante-chamber, first and second saloons, bedchamber, and boudoir. The walls are decorated with ample tapestries and draperies. The curtains are of muslin or Indian embroidery with festoons and fringes of gold and silver. The bedstead is ornamented with silks or stuffs in the most tender and delicate tints. The lamps are vases of alabaster. The mirrors art extremely numerous. The consoles are supported by Egyptian figures in bronze or ormolu. The dining room is panelled in polished stucco, simulating marble.”
The bedsteads were frequently built in the shape of boats, and ornamented with figures of heroes in bronze. Napoleon’s State bed had carved head and foot uoards with classic pillars. Buffets and consoles were rectangular in form ; for ornament they often had a mahogany column, with capital and base of bronze in the form of the head of a sphinx. Windsor Castle has a cabinet in this style. The columns on each side of the central panel have trellis mounts midway, while the sphinxes flank the sides ; this is probably one of Desmalter’s works ; he was making about the same time beds in mahogany, with carved and gilt ornaments, large bureaux ; a combined table and secretaire ; and also clocks. The secretaires were on a single model, with falling front, disclosing a peristyle, with a mirror, and a series of drawers at the sides, some secret.
AVhole suites of furniture were turned out in this rectangular style, with little carving or point or projection, except the cylindrical columns, bronze bound, with Doric or Corinthian capitals.
Where the frieze of a cabinet was in carved metal, it usually depicted Napoleon’s victories or some mythological subject. Thus applied, bronze took the shape of arms, casques, swords, buckles, lions, or swans from Roman or Egyptian monuments.
Console tables were still supported by sphinxes ; while candelabra and wall brackets had for ornament winged figures of females, also found on the cabinets.
Guéridons, tabourets or stools, and tripod stands generally were supported on animals’ feet, as in the ancient days.
Fauteuils often maintained the Roman chariot outline, while the legs and supports of the arms recall old Egyptian models.
Heaviness and massiveness, in fact, characterised the furniture of the period, and thus placed the examples in strong contrast with those of the Louis Seize style.
Tapestry was woven in Chinese subjects, the conventional Chinese style invented by artists of the 18th century, in which queerly-garbed personages engaged in rustic occupations which recalled the style of Boucher.
Contemporary writers complain that taste in furniture was earned to a ridiculous pitch ; while the inexperience and poor taste of those who furnished the abandoned palaces and hotels were proved by a thousand inconsistencies. Draperies, instead of being carefully arranged, were hung at hap-hazard.
This carelessness was in part due to the fact that the meetings of celebrities in the salons were held under the fear of espoinage ; and indeed the political salons gradually disappeared. Society, in the process of recovers from revolutionary agitation, fell once more into anxiety and uncertainty. Napoleon, it is true, reconstituted a brilliant Court at the Tuileries ; but the tone of the salons was the coldest, saddest and most insignificant prevailing during the whole period which has been passed under review.