( 220) fSepis

Comnmiercial Law Eaſes HEREFORD ASSIZES:

" CUPPER VV: WELLS.:

HIS cafe was particularly intereſting to landlords and tenants of. farms,

Lt: was an aStion brought by a Jandlord ägäinſt his tenant at will; for not managing his farm in a huſbandman-like manner. The damage was elti- mated at vpwards of 300l.

Mr. Gaftow, for tlie plaintiff, obſerved, that a Very miſtaken notion per vaded a great many perſons, who thought that a tenant at will had a right to do what hc thouglit proper with the lands. let to him. Of that deſcription was the defendant, who„having had notice to quit; began deſtroying the Jands he had cultivated to bis own advantage for a conſiderable number of years before 3; he ploughed up the meadows, ſold the crops by audttion, parted with the dung and manure from the farm, pulled the bodies of the nedtarine and peach-trees from the garden walls, pulled up the plants, and committed every kind of deterioration he could. think of, merely from an idea; that be- ing a tenant at will, he had a right to do; as he ſaid before, weEatever his will direted. After the caſe had been proved, and evidence given in defence,

Lord Ellenborough obſerved, that a farmer was bound to teave his farm in a ſimilar ſtate to that be found it in, notwithitanding be ſhould be a tenaut at will, He was alſo bouvd to manage it after the cuftom of the country; and in 24 huſbandman-like way. It was no defence to ſay de had Jaid down the meadows, and conſequently when called on to quit, he had a rigbt to break them up, particularly when a fair compenſation was offered to him: There certamly was ſomething in the cauſe that partook ot a willingnels to deſtroy the farm, and the jury would lay. what the damages ſhould be.=-Vetdigt for the plaintif--damages 2044.'

SUFFOLK ASSI1ZES»

Rabbet v. Raikes.

This was an adtion to recover the value of certain pollard-trees, on au eſtate purchaſed by the defendant of the plaintift, in the particular of which it was expreſſed that all timber and timber-like trees ſhould be taken at a Va« Juation. The defendant reſiſted payment for the pollards, not deeming them to come under the gener2] deſcription of timber-like trees 3 but, after a long hearing, a verdie was given for tlie. plaintiff, for the value of the ſaid pol- Jards«"26

NORWICH ASSIZES» Self v. Tyler.

"Che action was brought to recover 131. the difference of the price of 150 quarters ot„wheat, bought of the plaintiff, a merchant at Lynn, and which was duly ſhipped for Gainſborough z; but which, on account of a reduttion in price, the defendant refuſed to accept, and it was accordingly ſold.at the market price of the above place, with 2 difference of the ſum tor which the ation was brought. Verdi for the plaintiff, 481. damages.

Heaver V- Archer and others,

This was an ation of Irover brought by the plaintiff, Hewer, againſt the defendants, Archer and others, Feaſant, in the grain of their incloſed grounds at Lindale, and which they im-

ounded in a common open pound, within the diviſion. It appeared that the plaintif was not the owner of any lands whatever, either did he rent any pr0- PpertyY» ſave a ſmall cottage 3 aud that, as the commons were at the time en- cloſed under an at of parliament» the plaintiff had no place to depaſture his goods, ſave.in the 1 Fuel and lanes, and that they frequently broke dovn the fences, and,treſpalled ov the grounds of bis neighbours« Italſo appcared, that after the gelding was ſo impounded, the plaintifftendered damages, whien he conceived ſufhcient for the injury done tbe defendants, but which they re- Fuſed to accept, and the gelding remained in the pound thirteen weeks 3 at the

for a gelding which they had taken domage-

BEN,- cafe<a EDESG ING

ES EEE BEIT BIE