Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/163

 Rh

142

in a realm of their own. When one comes to analyze it. this contemDt for the above-mentioned pursuits is very illogical, for it subsists only in the fact of propor tion. The man who lets one a horse and wagon to travel ten miles, is not a guest to be invited to dinner by the highest or upper middle classes, but the owner of a railroad which conveys travellers on a large scale, is a highly respectable person. Society is rather con temptuous of the ta1lor but the contractor who fur nishes uniforms to an army is respectable. Whether a man sits on the judicial or the cobbler's bench is of moment only as it concerns the man — Roger Sher man sat on the latter in his youth. Atlantic City is full of men who never will be President, although they would look with infinite contempt on a rail-splitter or a canal-mule driver. Franklin Pierce said at least one thing that deserves to be recorded : when asked about his family coat-of-arms, he said it was his grandfather's shirt-sleeves at the battle of Bunker Hill. Know1ng Your Adversary's Moves. — Lately we read a striking story of Paul Murphy, the great chessplayer, who, being shown a painting representing the devil and a young man playing chess for the stake of the young man's soul, and the devil having an overpowering advantage, exclaimed, " I can win the game for the young man," and proceeded to demon strate his assertion upon a chessboard. But how did Murphy know what moves the adversary would make? We fear the tale is too thin. Lawyers cannot foresee what moves their antagonists will make, and we sup pose the chessplayer has no definite prescience on the subject.

NOTES OF CASES. Mut1lated Money. — There is a very numerous class of people in these United States who are crying loudly for base silver money, worth only about half its face, but who would refuse a clipped or punched pure silver coin. And now we find a decision in the New Jersey Supreme Court (North Hudson County Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 40 L. R. A. 410), to the effect that a dollar bill from the upper left-hand corner of which a piece one inch and a half by one inch and a quarter had been torn is not a legal tender for car fare, and the conductor may eject a passenger who refuses to make another payment. ••He was not bound to accept a bill which was substantially muti lated. If any part was absent which might aid in determining whether it was genuine, he was under no duty to receive it."' In Jersey City. B. R. Co. v. Morgan, 52 N. J. L. 60. 558. it was held that a dime worn smooth but not light or indistinguishable, was good tender for

carfare, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that there was no Federal question involved (160 U. S. 288). The conductor in Atlantic Con solidated S. Ry. Co. (Georgia Sup. Ct., 33 L. R. A. 824), was evidently not a coin-collector, for he refused a rare half dollar of 1824. supposing it to be counterfeit, and put the passenger off, and it cost the company $100 because he was " gruff " about it.

Ev1ct1on. — The following is from the London •• Law Journal " : — "An interesting point to tenants was decided recently by the deputy-judge of the City of London Court (Mr. G. Pitt-Lewis, Q.C.). An action was brought to recover the sum of 33/. 16j., the rent of a flat. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant took the flat of the plaintiff at 70/. a year, in March last, and furnished it. He had since left it and his goods were still on the premises, but he would pay no rent. He declined to pay any rent, and thought he was perfectly justified in so doing. There was only one common entrance to the mansions, and soon after he went into possession with his wife and family he found that one of the other flats was let to people of a disorderly character, who drove up with men at all hours of the night and morning. No decent man could condescend to allow his wife and children to stay in such a place, and he imme-' diately took them away. He had been compelled to go into rooms elsewhere, and he argued that ^le plaintiff had been guilty of a breach of covenant in letting the flat in quest1on to the disorderly people, who were still there. If premises were occupied for a purpose which was unlawful, that, in law, constituted a ' disturbance ' within the mean ing of the agreement of tenancy, and the landlord was responsible to himself and the other tenants in damages. Plaintiff's attorney denied that the flat objected to was oc cupied by disorderly persons,. but contended that even if it were, that was no reason why the defendant should not pay his rent. The deputy-judge said that was so. The defendant might bring an action for a nuisance against the plaintiff, or the plaintiff might be prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act for letting a place for an illegal purpose, if he had done so, and he was not deciding whether he had or not; there must be judgment for the plaintiff for 14/. 1 is. 6d. and costs." As the tenant did not remove his goods, but thus continued in possession, the ruling was unquestion ably correct. But according to Pendleton v. Dyett, 4 Cowen 581; 8 id. y^y.M he had surrendered the premises and had shown that the landlord knew the character of the other tenants before the letting to them, he would have been freed from the obligations of the lease, on the ground of an eviction. The dis tinction between a physical eviction from however small a part of the premises and a constructive evic tion on account of acts of the landlord diminishing the beneficial enjoyment, is generally recognized here, the former discharging the entire obligation to pay rent, but the latter not so if any possession is retained.