Lord Westmeath v Hogg

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1840
• Date: 19 November 1840
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

COMMON PLEAS.

Lord WESTMEATH

and

HOGG.

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.

CONENANT — CON-ACRE — SUBLETTING — SETTING ASIDE VERDICT.

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...