THE TENANT'S LIABILITY FOR AIRCRAFT DAMAGE.
['To Tar EDITOR 07 TIER "SPECTATOR."] SI is generally assumed that the tenant of a London house will, under the terms of his lease, be liable to rebuild his house in the event of its being destroyed as the result of a Zeppelin raid. It is not, however, usual in leases specifically to include damage done by the King's enemies, and in Pepys's. Diary, under date November 5th, 1666, I read ns follows :— " But my Lord Crow was discoursing at table how the Judges have determined in the case whether the landlords or the tenants (who are, in their leases, all of them generally tied to maintain and uphold their houses) shall bear the lease of the fire; and they say that tenants should against all casualties of fire beginning in their own or in their neighbour's; but, where it is done by an enemy, they are not to do it. And this was by an enemy, there having been one convicted and hanged upon this very score. This is an excellent salvo for the tenants, and for which I am glad, because of my father's house."
On a subsequent date Pepys refers again to the matter, and expresses the satisfaction which the citizens felt at the decision, but I am unable at the moment to give the reference. If this case still holds good, it is clear that the tenant is under no liability to rebuild, and a landlord who has relied upon a tenant rebuilding may be subject to considerable loss. I am not in a position to give an "opinion" on the point, and can only draw attention to the case as being of interest at the present time.—I am, Sir, Ste., J. S. AUSTEN. Plunalon House, Bury St. Edmunds.
[We are not legal experts, but we fear that Mr. Pepys's law is bad.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
