IT MAY BE LAW BUT IT IS NOT JUSTICE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2279, 22 July 1881, Page 3

IT MAY BE LAW BUT IT IS NOT JUSTICE.

Slßj—Such, was the feeling uppermost in the minda of almost everyone who left the Court on Monday evening at the conclusion of the ease “ Stubbs v Ohinnery." Aa the case has been but briefly reported in the daily papers, it may prove beneficial to future tenants if you will allow me to give a brief summary of the facta. The tenant in this case (Chinnery), an illiterate man, is foolish enough to bind himself to a lease containing numerous c onditions, some of which would bo a moral impossibility for any tenant to strictly perform. The farm was shown to be a vary wet and expensive one to bring into payable order. The tenant was shown to have cut numerous drains, broken" up a large quantity of fresh land ; in short it was admitted by the witnesses on both sides that he had materially added to the value of the farm. Without any apparent reason he ia suddenly charged and brought to Court on an alleged breach of numerous covenants, something Uke twenty. In fact as the learned counsel for the plaintiff remarked, he seemed to have systematically “ left undone those things which he ought to have done, and dene those things which he ought not to have done.” Why ha was charged with all these breaches soemo unexplainable, as no attempt was made to prove several of them, and the lot dwindled down to two or three trivial breaches which without doubt had been committed, but which, as I said before, were covenants no tenant could strictly carry out ; for instance, “not allowing any goree to grow out of line of fence. It was held to be a sufficient broach if any stray bushes were found on the land, no matter how few they were. Now, sir, any farmer knows that unless ho kept a man almost at every gorsa bush to chop it down when it showed any growth it is impossible to keep to the letter of the law. In this instance it was proved beyond doubt some stray bushes of gorse did er.croach on the land, but it was also given in evidence that the cost of grubbing up that gorse was undertaken for 265. But still this was enough, with other small trivial breaches, to turn who had expended some £9OO on improving the land out of a farm which ho looked to recoup him his outlay in the latter part of a ten years' lease, having only been, in occupation two years. I am, sir, both a landlord and a tenant, and I feel confident there is not a single tenant in Canterbury who, according to this law, could hold his farm for a day longer. The jury, who were unanimous in their opinion, thought they had a right to add a rider to their finding that “no substantial breach of covenant had taken place,” but they wore most promptly told by his Honor that they had nothing to do with that part of the question. The result of this case is that a hard-working respectable man who has, according to ample evidence, been a most satisfactory tenant, and has done what any reasonable landlord would bo perfectly satisfied with, is put out of a valuable farm for the moat trivial reasons. This, I trust, will be a warning to everyone who intends leasing land to, at any rate, not have one lawyer for both sides, and to be careful they do not bind themselves to impossible covenants, which may enable a hard landlord to come in and eject them after they have, perhaps, laid out their all in improving the land they have leased. The propriety of bringing the action in question was certainly questionable. There was no apparent gain, but much apparent loss. In short, the Judge lost his temper, the learned counsel on both sides lost theirs, the foreman of the jury last his, the unfortunate defendant lost his farm, and the plaintiff lost a good tenant. Doubtless, I lay myself open to a charge of indiscretion in writing as I have done, but my plea is (hat, feeling aa strongly as I do about the injustice of this case, I am willing to risk the charge and be satisfied if this letter should be" the moans of saving any intending tenants from oo'unfitting themselves aa the unfortunate victim in this case certainly did. Apologising for the length of this letter, Yours, &0., One of the Just.