795
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
Mat 13, 1899.
memorandum signed by Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Thomas would bind ■the defendant, and it was contended by the plaintiff that such a memorandum existed, and that a letter of April 1, 1898, signed by the defendant’s solicitors, Messrs.. Farrer and Co■., was a sufficient signature by a duly authorised agent of the def endant. His Lordship thought that a letter of February 25 to the defendant’s solicitors׳, Which contained all the terms and details necessary for an effective contract, and was signed by Messrs. Chapman, Rogers and Thomas, and which was relied on by the plaintiff, was not a sufficient memorandum within the Statute of Frauds. It was clear from the whole of the subsequent correspondence that a contract was, in fact, made on or about February 25, and׳ it was assumed on both sides that all that remained was to put it into shape. There was nothing in the character or extent of any modification or additions inconsistent with a substantial adherence to the original memorandum or to indicate any intention except to carry it out and put it into a shape as convenient as possible for both parties. In his Lordship’s opinion the modifications proposed to be introduced into the original contract never interfered with its efficacy as a contract in fact made, and the only remaining question was whether there was the evidence required by the Statute of Frauds of a 60 yeans? term for the leasehold, which had in fact been agreed upon from the first, but which did not appear in the letter of February 25 signed by Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Thomas. ׳,What was wanting was supplied by their letter of March 23 to Messrs. Farrer and Co. It was clear by that letter that they approved the draft contract which had been sent to them, and they therefore signified that it was part of the original contract that the term should be 60 years. The learned Judge, after dealing in detail with the draft contract, went on the say that ■there appeared to him to have been an actual contract made about February 25, and the necessary evidence of its contents appeared in the two letters of Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Thomas, ׳of February 25 and March 23 and the draft contract. It wa׳s clear from the correspondence that the solicitors were only employed to put the contract into shape, and he therefore ■was of opinion that the finally agreed draft signed by Messrs. Farrer and Co. did not satisfy, as ■the plaintiff contended, the Statute ■of Frauds. His׳ Lordship concluded by stating that his׳ judgment in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, was not based at all on the signature by Messrs. Farrer and Co. of the draft as finally agreed, but upon the correspondence which ended with the letter of March 23.
The question of the measure of damages was then discus׳sed, and his Lordship heard some evidence on the matter and finally assessed the damages at £1,540.
Judgment accordingly. A stay of execution was) granted in view of an appeal.
Contents or a Cotjntby House.—A five days’ sale of the contents of Fairfield House, Bradford-on-Avon, was lately conducted on the premises by Mr. F. R. Ravenhill, ׳of Warminster. In the furniture the best prices were obtained as follows :—Massive tubular brass-mounted iron French bedstead, £3 10s. ; a well-made 7ft. 6in. birch double-winged wardrobe, lined with mahogany, with brilliant silver plate glass panel in centre door, £17 10s. ; a superior 4ft. mahogany wardrobe, £6	15s. ; 7ft.
double-winged wardrobe, fitted with drawers, etc., £10 10s. ; a four-foot double washstand, having veined Sicilian marble tray top, £3 15s. ; a 3ft. 6in. mahogany camp chest, bound with brass, £3 ; two oak frame cane seat chairs, £3 ; repeating carriage clock in case, £2 5s. ; antique mahogany Chippendale chair, worked- seat, £4 16s. ; handsome Turkey carpet, 18ft. by 12ft. £8; 7ft. pedestal sideboard, !£7 14s. ; 5ft. screw telescope dining table, with round ends, extending 12ft., £7 7׳si ; eight small chairs, £8 ; set of five steel engravings in massive gilt frames, £12 12s. ; handsome blue ground bordered Axminster carpet, as laid, 18ft. by 12ft., £6 ; inlaid Chippendale table, £3 ; antique mahogany Chippendale china cabinet, £13 ; antique mahogany Chippendale arm chair, covered with Utrecht velvet, £3 3s. ; luxurious cabriole couch, £4 4s7 ; .׳-octave piano, by J. Broadwood and Sons, in ebonised and gold case, £29 ; ormolu clock, under glass case on ebonised stand, £10 ; handsome Persian carpet, 18ft. by 15ft., £9 9s. ; Persian mat, £3 10s. ; oak pedestal writing table, £7 7s. ; antique 4ft. mahogany bookcase, £8 ; microscope in mahogany case, by Banks, £6 ; 4ft. 6in. mahogany kneehole writing table, £6 6si ; large opossum skin rug, £3 6s. Among the various lots of lace a piece of Mechlin lace realised £4 5s. ; one pair of Honiton sleeves ■and ׳sundry pieces of lace, £2 18s. ; Honiton lace shawl and two lappets, £5 ; ■and black Spanish cape and scarf, £3. The books and engravings sold well. Sowerby’s English Botany, with coloured illustrations, 37 volumes, £23 ; .three books of sketches, £2 6s. ; four large volumes, illustrated with engravings, £2 14s. ; Bewick’s British Birds and Quadrupeds, ־three volumes, £3 3s. A collection of engravings, etc., realised £14.
bidden by section 39 of the Act, and the defendants could not now fall back on section 11. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs.
May 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Gbantham a!nd a Common Jury.)
A TENANT'S OHABACTEB.
SHERWOOD V. KEEVIL.
This case was an action to recover damages for alleged misrepresentations in regard to the character of a tenant.
Mr. Powell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Muir and Mr. Humphreys for the defendant.
The plaintiff carried on business as a seller of corsets and underwear for ladies in the Totten-ham-court-road, and the defendant was׳ the proprietor of a house in Regent-street, where one of .the floors was let to a Madame Ouzman, whose business was that of a practitioner of massage, manicure, and chiropody, with electric baths. In June, 1897, Madame Ouzman applied to the plaintiff to become a tenant of a portion of his house, with a view to carrying on her business there, and gave the defendant’s name for reference. The defendant, on being applied to, said Madame Ouzman had rented his place at £32 a year for one and a half years, and she then found the rent too much, adding, “She paid fairly well, and carried on a respectable business.” Accordingly the lady was accepted as a tenant ; but in May, 1898, the plaintiff ascertained from a newspaper report of a case at Bow-street ׳that the defendant had deceived him as to her character, and that, the report stated, he was! obliged to get rid of her, foregoing rent due. Plaintiff now claimed damages for the injury he had sustained in his business and reputation.
For the defence, Mr. Keevil, his solicitor, and his solicitor’s partner, and Mr. Cavendish, chief clerk at Bow-street, swore that he did mot use the words attributed to him in the report.
The report referred to was that appearing in the “Daily Chronicle,” but it was pointed out by Mr. Powell that substantially the same account of the proceedings at Bow-street (written by a different reporter) was published in other London papers. This, he argued, went to prove that the “Daily Chronicle’s” report of the proceedings was correct.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
May 6.
(Before Mr. Justice Wills.) PUECHASE OF LAND: BEEAOH OF CONTEACT:
STATUTE OF FEAUDS.
BOWEN V. DUC D’ORLEANS.
This action was brought by Mr. Kerbey Bowen, an electric launch builder, who was owner of a portion of Eel-pie Island, on the Thames at Twickenham, to recover damages from the Due d’Orleans for breach of contract to purchase his interest in the island.
Mr. Robert Wallace, Q.C., Mr. Ernest Pollock and Mr. Harold Simmons were counsel for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Dickens, Q.C., and Mi•. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff in 1897 owned a part of Eel-pie Island, and the Due d’Orleams, who occupied York House, Twickenham, was! anxious to secure the island to prevent it from becoming a nuisance. The matter was placed by him in the hands of Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Thomas, estate agents, and the plaintiff put himself in communication with them and offered to sell his interest to the duke for £4,500, on the condition that he would grant him back a lease of certain works on the island. A long correspondence passed between Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Co., who were admitted to be the duke’s agents in the matter, and the plaintiff’s solicitors and the duke’s solicitors, and the plaintiff executed the contract for sale. At the last moment, however, the Due d’Orleans declined to sign the contract on the ground that be had made it a condition that he would buy the whole island or no part of it at all. The defendant contended that he did not enter into an agreement to purchase the plaintiff’s portion of the island, and if there was such an agreement it was one which did not comply with the Statute of Frauds. The question as to this turned Wholly on the¡ correspondence between the representatives ■of the parties. He further contended that the matter never went beyond negotiation ; while, on the other hand, the plaintiff maintained that the correspondence showed that there was a concluded agreement, and that there was a sufficient memorandum signed by the defendant’s agents to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was bound by the signature of his solicitors of the finally agreed draft contract.
Mr. Justice Wills, in the course of his judgment, said that two points were made for the defence—that the matter never passed beyond the stage of ׳negotiation, and that there was no memorandum in writing signed by the defendant or his agent in that behalf to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The defendant himself had signed nothing, but it was conceded that an adequate
Mr. W. H. Derbyshire, auctioneer, and surveyor to the local Board of Health, also gave evidence.
The counsel for the parties then addressed his Lordship at length, and at the conclusion of their speeches judgment was reserved.
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION.
May 3.
(Before Mr. Justice Mathew.)
ACTION FOE DAMAGES: CUTTING OFF SUPPLY OF GAS: NOTICE.
GRIFFITHS AND ANOTHER V. ILFORD GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
In this action the plaintiffs, owners of the Red Lion public-house, Ilford, sought to recover damages from the ,local gas company for cutting off the ■supply of gas.
Mr. Hume Williams, Q.O., and Mr. A. H. Boyser appeared for the plaintiffs!; Mr. Dickens, Q.C., and Mr. Macaskie for the defendant company.
In September, 1898, a man named Ferris was the owner and occupier of the Red Lion subject to two mortgages׳—one for £17,000 to the brewers, and a second for £6,000 to the plaintiff Griffiths. On September 15, 1898, the interest of the latter being in arrear, Griffiths recovered judgment against Ferris for £6,072. On October 6, 1898, Ferris agreed in writing to give up possession to Griffiths upon receiving £100, and on October 7 signed an acknowledgment that he only remained in occupation as tenant at will of Griffiths. On October 14 Griffiths took Hastier (!the other plaintiff) into partnership, and it was arranged that the new firm should take over the Red Lion on October 17. Early in October the defendants had given Ferris notice that■ they were about to out off the gas, he being in arrears. Oil October 14 plaintiffs sent formal notice to the defendants that the change of proprietorship would take place on October 17, and on October 17 defendants’ inspector came and checked the meter in order to see how much was due by the outgoing tenant. On October 14 Ferris left, and on October 15 Hastier came in. On October 21 defendants’ collector presented to Hastier a demand note for £56 18s. 9d., being the amount due from Ferris, and threatened to cut off the gas if it was not paid. Plaintiffs had an interview on the same day with the chairman and secretary of the defendant company, and offered to pay for whatever gas plaintiffs had consumed since Ferris left, and to give security for the future. Defendants refused any terms except the payment of Ferris?® account, and later in the same day the gas was actually cut off. On October 22 plaintiffs offered by letter to pay from the previous September 29, and defendants, by letter of October 24, accepted this offer subject to plaintiffs giving security for the future. To this the plaintiffs! returned no answer, and they no-w claimed damages for loss of trade due to the cutting off of the gas from October 21 to October 24.
Mr. Justice Mathew asked the jury—(1) Were defendants aware on October 21 that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the Red Lion? (2) Did defendants■ state on October 21 that unless Ferris’s account was paid they would not supply plaintiffs with gas ? If the jury were of opinion that they could answer both questions׳ in the affirmative they would find for the plaintiffs.
Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £50.
Mr. Dickens asked for judgment for the defendants on the ground that they were not bound to put on the gas without written notice. By section 11 of 34 and 35 Viet., c. 41 (the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871)—“The undertaker® shah, upon being required so to do by the owner or occupier of any premises .... give, and continue to give, a supply of gas for such premises under such pressure in the main as may be prescribed. .	.	. Every owner or
occupier of premises requiring a supply of gas shall serve a notice upon the undertakers at their office, specifying the premises in respect of which such supply is required, and the day (not being an earlier day than a reasonable time after the date of the service of such notice) upon which such supply is required to commence
.	.	.	. and give to the undertakers (if
required by them so to do) security for the payment to then! of all moneys which may become due to them by such owner or occupier in respect of any pipe to be furnished by the undertakers and in respect of gas to he supplied by them.” The provision as to giving security only came into force if the undertakers so required, but that as to giving notice was absolute. At the interview of October 21 the defendants only had verbal notioe ; they were entitled to written notioe.
Mr. Hume Williams, for the plaintiffs, was not called upon.
Mr. Justice Mathew held that verbal notice was sufficient. The evidence was that the defendants, under a misapprehension, required the new occupiers to pay the arrears of the outgoing tenant. Such a claim was expressly for-
By Mr. Lawrence: The sewage deposit load been in the Park at least 35 years, and he could not say how long previous. The subsoil was a bed of chalk 70ft. or 80ft. deep. That was very absorbent until the surface became saturated. The making of dome-wells there, lie should think, would take the sewage. He thought that absorbing tanks there would take the sewage of the town for the next 50 years. There was no doubt that the High-street sewers were very ancient, and very inferior (laughter). There was some portion of High-street, Dunstable, still not built upon. Dunstable was not a place where building operations were extensively carried on. The area of this׳ sewage deposit depended to some extent upon the rainfall, but there was always about three acres covered. He repudiated the suggestion that the area covered in the Park was only about an acre and a half at present; there was more than three acres covered with the water and the deposit. When the water receded a little there was still the deposit of silt and filth covering the larger area.
Mr. Lawrence addressed his Lordship for the defence. He pointed out that this outfall was the natural nlace where the drainage of the town would by natural gravitation accumulate. The town went back to the time of the old Roman roads, and there were ancient sewers in the principal streets of which no one could say when they were put down. His Lordship had the fact before him that those sewers׳ were originally constructed for carrying not only surface water, but sewage also, as was shown by the fact that there were ancient cesspools and settling tanks, etc. That tended to show that, with 70ft. or 80ft. of chalk at the outfall, there was in those days a sewage system capable at any rate of dealing with all the requirements of those early days, and with an outfall capable of absorbing far more than the drainage of tlie town as it existed in those days.
His Lordship: Do you mean to represent that this ancient town had at one time an advanced sanitary system ?
Mr. Lawrence said Dunstable might at the !■resent time be behind the times, yet in days gone by, considering what sanitary science was at that time, the town had certainly an advanced system of sewage. The method might have been rough and ready, but in the opinion of many to-day those rough and ready methods were far more effective than some modem systems. At any rate it had been proved that years ago Dunstable had a sewage system which carried away such sewage as there was, and that Mrs. Brown made a settling tank on her own ground, and that the owner of the Kingsbury estate made another. Connections had been made with those sewers from time to time without ithe consent of the local authority, and that suggested that there must have originally been a consent from the owner of the Dunstable Park in ancient times for the drainage to be sent in thait direction. He submitted that there was nothing extraordinary in the supposition that that was the case. The ancient owner of the Park estate at one time owned many houses in High-street, Dunstable. What was more reasonable than to suppose that he consented to them being drained in that direction ? How else came the sewers to fall in that direction?
The first witness called for the defence was Benjamin George, Inspector of Nuisances: ■for the Borough of Dunstable. He said he had held that office ever since the Corporation was formed in 1865. He had kept records of all drainage works done. The report of August, 1869, was drawn up by witness. The houses mentioned in that report were, the majority of them, old houses, in the old parts of the town, and drained into the old sewers. He .anew of no new sewers made since 1869, except small relief drains, and׳ the reversal of the drains in High-street, when new pipes were put down to take the place of old ones. From the appearance of the main sewers which he had seen opened on various occasions in various parts of the town, ¡they were very ancient. One of them was built partly of stone. The others of old bricks, and the sewers were very large. The reason why the Town Council reversed the High-street north sewers was because the outlet in Dog Kennel-close had been stopped. A nuisance was caused by Major Brown stopping up that outlet. When that sewer was reversed, no new connections were made; the old connections were remade. With regard to the old Town Hall, witness could remember it when it was an old residence. There was a butcher’s shop in the ■front, with slaughter-house at the back, and■ the usual out-offices, all of which were connected with the old sewers. The old Market House was above the butcher’s shop and another office, and the Corporation eventually bought all that property and made a new Town Hall. For over 30 years that Town Hall was drained into the old sewer, and the new Town Hall was built on the site of the old one, and was drained similarly. Four new surface water drains had been made in recent years by the Town Council, but they were only surface water drains.
Mr. George was cross-examined, and was followed in the box by several other witnesses— “ old inhabitants.”