[tenancy, damage to property - law reporting]

Moore v. Barnes

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Montagu J., 8 June 1837

Source: True Colonist, 9 June 1837[1]

This was one of Little Rowland’s “intricacies” - Barnes had been a very successful pupil of our Little Particular. Having perfected himself in Little Rowland’s art, he thought he would try the mystery of grog-selling, and with this view he rented Mr. Moore’s house at Stoney Point. But Mr. Moore soon found that Rowlands’ pupil like his master, was more desirable as a distant acquaintance than as a tenant or near neighbour.

When the first quarter’s rent became due, Barnes pleaded poverty, and begged for more time which he got. At the end of the second quarter he became saucy, and Mr. Moore distrained, when Mr. Barnes paid up, and began a la Rowlands to blackguard Mr. Moore in that convenient vehicle of blackguardism, the little Trumpeter, and at the same time commenced a system of malicious mischief in wilfully destroying Mr. Moore’s property, for which Mr. Moore was compelled to take him before the Police Magistrate Mr. Champ. Here Rowlands appeared to defend his pupil - but finding the case assumed a very serious appearance, and that Mr. Champ was about to commit him to the Criminal Court, our Little Particular changed his plan of operations, and calling Mr. Moore out into the passage, appealed to his feelings to save his friend, and addressed him in these words - which we desire to be particularly noticed with reference to the oath which the Little Particular swore yesterday.

Rowlands. - You do not want to transport the man, Moore - do you?

Moore - I do not want to transport any person, I only want compensation for my property.

Rowlands. - If you swear that Barnes, since he received your notice, has done you damage above £5 he will be transported.

Moore. - The damage you know has been valued at £30, but I will not lay it at more than £5, for I will not be the means of transporting him.

Rowlands then went into the office and said to Mr. Champ. Moore still persists in this case. Mr. Champ then asked Mr. Moore if he would swear that the damage done before the notice was more than £5, which Mr. Moore declined, and the case was dismissed. About a fortnight afterwards Barnes left the house which he rented - having first bolted, nailed, and chained every door and window in the house, so securely that it is impossible to open the windows without tearing them to pieces. He carried away the key and has not up to this hour given it to Mr. Moore.

Now, the case yesterday, was an action brought for the last quarter’s rent. The occupancy was admitted, and last sittings when the case was called for trial, Mr. Justice Montagu discharged the Jury without taking a verdict, saying that the case was so clear for the plaintiff, that there was nothing to try. However, it was found necessary to bring it on again. And the defence set up was, that Mr. Moore had agreed to give up the quarter’s rent, for the sake of getting rid of the pupil of our Little Particular - and Little Rowlands absolutely swore, that when he went outside with Mr. Moore to beg him not to transport Barnes - that then Mr. Moore agreed to give up a quarter’s rent to get rid of a bad tenant - and strange to say, the Jury believed him. We understand that Mr. Moore intends making some further stir in the business, when Mr. Champ will be called to prove what Rowlands stated when he returned with Mr. Moore into the Police Office. We cannot conceive how the Jury could believe Little Rowlands, when it was proved that Barnes had not only taken away the key, and shut up the house as described, to prevent the possibility of Mr. Moore getting in, but that he had come at the end of a fortnight to see that Mr. had not got in - and to prove that his fastening was secure.

This case in itself is of little importance, but it is awfully serious as showing how evidence can be got in this country to support any plaint or defence. We recollect once hearing a jannissary say, any case is won when it comes to depend on my oath. We wonder if Mr. McDowall, when examining Little Rowlands, had any recollection of the affidavit, which the little scamp prepared and wished Mr. McDowall to swear in the case of Arthur against Gregson, and which Mr. McDowall declared every word to be false and of course refused to swear it. Did Mr. McDowall pull the little fellows ears for his imprudence.

Pedder C.J. and Montagu J., in Banco, 22 August 1837

Source: True Colonist, 25 August 1837

When we entered Mr. Horne was making a motion to set aside the verdict in the case of Moore v Barnes, in which there was a verdict for the defendant. We understood the Judges to decide, that on the shewing of Mr. Horne the verdict was wrong, but that the plaintiff ought to pay a portion of the costs on the trial, the circumstances of which we fully related at the time, with our opinion that through some technical error in the proceedings, the verdict, although according to the evidence adduced, was contrary to justice. After a good deal of argument, the Chief Justice recommended that the parties should settle the matter themselves. Mr. Horne, after some conversation with the Solicitor General, signified to the court, that the parties would arrange the matter. Barnes will, of course, have to pay the rent for which he was sued.

Notes