APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



191 



rejects any farther discussion of 

 the subject. Now, contended the 

 learned counsel, no man of proper 

 feeling would have acted thus to- 

 wards a neighbour who had alwaj's 

 lived on the best terms with him, 

 and who had been injured. Mi'. 

 Hartley was reluctantly driven into 

 Court to seek that redress which 

 he failed to get in a more amicable 

 way : and Mr. Scarlett trusted the 

 result of the appeal would convince 

 the defendant that the law will not 

 authorize him to keep dogs to as- 

 sail either people or property. 



After evidence was heard on 

 both sides, the judge, Mr. Baron 

 Wood, summed up. He said there 

 were three questions for the con- 

 sideration of the jury — First, whe- 

 ther the sheep had been attacked, 

 or*worried, as it was called, by the 

 dogs ' Secondly, if they had been 

 so worried, was it by Mr. Har- 

 rir.ian's dogs ? And, thirdly, 

 whether Mr. Harriman had re- 

 ceived sufficient previous notice to 

 take care of his dogs ? These 

 were the simple questions for de- 

 cision. In his opinion it was not 

 necessary for the dogs to have 

 actually bitten the persons they 

 attacked to prove their savage na- 

 ture. 



Verdict for the plaintiff — Da- 

 mages '241. 10s. Both plaintiff and 

 defendant were in covirt during the 

 trial. 



Before the Master of the Rolls. — 

 Fieldes v. Hooker. — This was a 

 case extremely interesting to all 

 persons standing in the situation 

 of owners or tenants of leasehold 

 properly. The question, which 

 came before the court on an ex- 

 ception to the Master's Report, 

 was, whether tlie defendant, who 



had entered into an agreement 

 with the plaintiff to accept a lease 

 for 21 years of a house in Orescent 

 Place, Tavistock Square, was jus- 

 tified in refusing to carry the 

 agreement into execution under 

 the following circumstances: — The 

 defendant having contracted to ac- 

 cept the lease for 21 years, desired 

 to see the title of the plaintiff to 

 grant him the term, upon which 

 the plaintiff delivered him an ab- 

 stract of his title, deducing it from 

 a Mr. Burton, to whom the Skin- 

 ners' Company had, in 1S09, de- 

 mised it, with other premises, for 

 a long term. The defendant^ not 

 satisfied witli this, desired to look 

 into the title of the Skinners' Com- 

 pany, but their solicitor refused 

 to produce the deeds. It was 

 argued at the bar, that they had 

 no right to expose their title at 

 the risk of having some flaw found 

 in it. Perhaps there was not a 

 corporate company in the City of 

 London who could show a good 

 title to the property of which they 

 pretend to be the owners. It was 

 a circumstance recent in the me- 

 mory of the court, that the Cor- 

 poration of Newcastle had lost 

 7000/. a year, by impinidently ex- 

 posing their title, to satisfy the 

 curiosity of a person to whom 

 their tenant had agreed to grant 

 an underlease. It would be suffi- 

 cient for the defendant to have 

 from the plaintifif a covenant for 

 quiet enjoyment. The defendant 

 insisted, that unless he was per- 

 fectly satisfied as to the title of the 

 Skinners' Company, he could not 

 be compelled to perform the con- 

 tract, and the company refusing 

 to have their title inquired into, 

 tlieie was an end of the agree- 

 ment. 



Tlie 



