Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Jury Court Reports
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Hamilton v. Hamilton. [1825] ScotJCR 4_Murray_6 (26 December 1825)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1825/4_Murray_6.html
Cite as: [1825] ScotJCR 4_Murray_6
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 6↓
(1825) 4 Murray 6
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT, AT EDINBURGH, AND ON THE CIRCUIT, FROM DECEMBER 1825 TO JULY 1828.
No. 2
v.
PRESENT, LORDS CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND
Finding that a tenant was not due a sum claimed as rent for a half year, but was liable in damages for mis-management of the farm.
An action by a minor, an heir of entail, and his curator to recover the rent of a farm for half a
Page: 7↓
Defence.—The rent was paid, and any damage arising from deviation from the lease was compensated by the state in which the pursuer got the farm.
The issues contained admissions that the pursuer was an heir of entail—that the former heir let the farm to the defender—that the defender renounced the lease before its termination, and quitted possession of the arable land at Martinmas 1822, and the houses and pasture at Whitsunday 1823.
The questions then were, Whether he failed to pay to the pursuer the rent from Martinmas 1822 to Whitsunday 1823? And Whether, in violation of the agreement in the missive of lease, he did, during his possession, overcrop or mismanage the farm?
Pyper, in opening the case, and Jeffrey in reply, stated the facts, and that, as the pursuer possessed from Martinmas to Whitsunday, the pursuers were entitled to some payment, though they did not contend for the full rent. On
Page: 8↓
Cockburn, for the defender, said, This was a question of agricultural science;—that no rent was proved to be due. On the contrary, too much had been paid. That the land was not mislaboured, but was in better condition than at the beginning of the lease. The renunciation was at first absolute, and the reservation of a claim of damages was an after thought.
Incompetent to prove by parol the meaning of a clause in a tack, but competent to prove the fact of the tenant's entry to possession.
The first witness called was asked, At what time did the defender enter to the farm?
Jeffrey, for the pursuer, objects, This is incompetent, as the writing proves the term of entry.
Lord Chief Commissioner.—No question can be put to explain this written agreement; but there is no objection to proving the fact of his entry. As there is no term of issue mentioned, the lease must be held as for nineteen years from Martinmas 1818.
( To the Jury.)—In this case, though the pursuer conducts it with liberality, you must be guided by law. The missive is admitted and clear; but it is said the acceptance of the renunciation has no date, and that the reservation in it was an after thought. There is no
Page: 9↓
The defender remained in possession till Whitsunday, but could derive very little profit, except the convenience of living in the houses, and there is no evidence that he was asked to quit them.
The second is the material issue, and on this two intelligent witnesses speak to about sixty-five acres, which were mismanaged, and that it would require about L. 5 an acre to put them in order. This has been answered by the defender, but there has been no contrary evidence. You ought to give a moderate sum, especially if you think the farm was generally improved.
Verdict—“For the defender on the first issue, and for the pursuer on the second issue,—damages L. 100.”
Counsel:
Jeffrey and Pyper, for the Pursuer.
Cockburn and D. Dickson, for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, James Tod, w. s., and Mack & Wotherspoon.)