Lord Westmeath v Hogg

Judgment Date19 November 1840
Date19 November 1840
CourtCourt of Common Pleas (Ireland)




Parker v. Plumer Cro. Eliz. 190.

The King v. The Inhabitants of Old AlresfordENR 1 T. R. 358.

Doe d. Dingley v. SalesENR 1 M. & S. 298.

Close v. Brady Jon. & Car. 186.

Doe d. Hanley v. WoodENR 2 B. & Al. 724.

Pitt v. LamingENR 4 Camp. 73.

Crusoe v. Bugby 3 Wils. 234.

Doe d. Pitt v. HoggHRC 4 D. & R. 226.

Greenslade v. TapscottENR 1 C. M. & R. 55.

Webb v. Paternoster Palmer Rep. 74.

Crosbie v. WadsworthENR 6 East, 603.


MICHAELMAS TEAM, THIRD VICTORIA. 27 Thursday, November 19th. CONENANT-CON-ACRE-SUBLETTING-SETTING ASIDE VERDICT. Lord WESTMEATH v. HOGG. MR. WHITE shewed cause against the conditional order of the 5th of Where the fol- lowing proviso November; "that the verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this cause, at was contained " the last Summer Assizes, should be set aside, and a verdict entered in a lease on which £170. Ss. "for the defendant, pursuant to leave reserved by the Judge before 2d ed . as was the resery year- - " whom the trial was had." This was an action for a breach of cove- ly rent, " ProÂnant, brought by a lessor against his lessee, and three breaches were " vided, &c., " that as long averred, two of which were abandoned at the trial, and the third alone was " as the said relied on. That breach alleged non-payment of three years' rent, due and "H. H., his heirs, &c., ending November 1st, 1838. The rent reserved by the lease (which "shall conti- occu- bore date May 1, 1821, and was for three lives and twenty-one years), " nue to py the lands was £170. 5s. 2d., but the terms of the following proviso in it, went " and Pre-the mises &c. to exonerate the defendant from one-half of that rent :---"Provided "without per- " always, and it is the true intent and meaning of these presents, that " mutingting " " as long as the said Henry Hogg shall continue to occupy the lands " of "erection oany other " and premises, with the appurtenances, hereinbefore demised, without "house than " that and the "permitting the erection of any other house than that, and the office "offices there- "unto belong- "thereunto belonging, in which the said Henry Hogg, his heirs or i4 ing, iu which "assigns, shall, himself or themselves bond fide reside, or dwell, or live "the said H. " H., his "in, without letting, setting, alienating, or assigning, or otherwise "heirs, &c. "disposing of all or any part of the lands and premises, and appurte- "shall, - shall, him " self or themÂ" names, hereby demised, unless by consent in writing under the seal "selves, bond fiese, " and title of honor of George Earl of Westmeath, his heirs, &c., for "without let- " alienation in any manner as aforesaid ; that then the said Henry Hogg, " Wig, setting, " alienating, "his heirs, &c., shall only yield and pay unto the said George Earl of " assigning, or ise " Westmeath, his heirs, &c., the sum of £85. 2s. 7d. sterling yearly, in "otherw disposing of " time and manner as aforesaid." The evidence produced at the trial was " all or any " part of considered by the Judge to be sufficient evidence of a subletting, and he " lands and desired the jury to find for the plaintiff on the third breach, on the "premises, " c, unless ground of a setting in con-acre-con-acre, as appeared by the evidence, "by consent in being a giving of land to another person to manure, till, and take a crop " wr der ititheg, seal, out of it. It is contended by the defendant, that a setting of this kind "&c. of G., " Earl of is not a breach of the proviso ; and if it should be so held by the Court, " his heirs,&c. "for alienation "in any manner as aforesaid, that then the said H. H., his heirs, &c., shall only pay to " G. Earl of W., his heirs, &c., the sum of £85. 2s. 7d. yearly, in time and manner "aforesaid." Held, that a letting in con-acre was not a letting within the contemplaÂtion of the said proviso, so as to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Browne v Marquis of Sligo
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 1 décembre 1859
    ...S. 276. Rex v. BardwellENR 2 B. & C. 161. Hughes v. Overseers of ChathamUNK 5 M. & G. 54. Rex v. Snape 6 A. & E. 278. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Parker v. TaswellENR 2 De G. & J. 559. Pain v. CombesENR 1 De G. & J. 34. Calverly v. Williams 1 Ves. jun. 201. Clowes v. Higginson 1 Ve......
  • Booth v M'Manus
    • Ireland
    • Exchequer (Ireland)
    • 8 juin 1861
    ...B., and FITZGERALD and DEASY, BB. BOOTH and M'MANUS. Close v. Brady Jon. & C. 186. Mayhew v. Suttle 4 Ell. & Bl. 347. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Dease v. O'Reilly 8 Ir. Law Rep. 52. Mulligan v. Adams Ibid, 132. Pitt v. LamingENR 4 Camp. 73. Pitt v. Hogg 4 Dowl. & Ry. 226. Greensla......
  • Dease, Executor of Matthew O'Reilly, v William O'Reilly
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 28 janvier 1845
    ...Bench. DEASE, Executor of MATTHEW O'REILLY, and WILLIAM O'REILLY. Lord Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Ex parte SmythENR 1 Swans. 338, note. Ex parte SmythENR 3 Hare, 173. Brown v. AmyotENR 2 Taunt. 148. Hegan v. JohnsonENR 3 Bing. 361. Knight v. BenettENR 5 Bing. 185. Cox v. Bent 5 Ir......
  • Thomas Jones, Lessee of Lord Ashtown v James White and Richard White
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 11 novembre 1847
    ...WHITE. Hume v. Kent 1 B. & Bea. 554. Bonafous v. RybotENR 3 Burr. 1374. Davis v. Jackson 1 Ir. Cir. c. 184. Lord Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Lessee Bowen v. Cleary 10 Ir. Law Rep. 449. Davis v. Jackson Ir. Cir. Rep. 384. 400 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1847. Queei faelsols. THOMAS. JONES; ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT