1820. BOLTON ข. EYLES. and all legal acts have relation thereto. This case was recognised by the Court of King's Bench in the case of Lord Portchester against Petrie, in Hilary term 1783. We think the interval between the essoign day and the day of the Court's actually sitting must be taken to be part of the term. But it is said, that if it be so, still the bill cannot be filed, because by the practice it is necessary that the warden should be called in court before the bill is filed. That which is mere form, and rendered impossible by the Court's not actually sitting during this interval, ought not, we think, to prevent the Plaintiff from commencing his suit, nor ought, in our judgment, the impossibility of his giving a rule to plead before the sitting of the Court to have that effect. We think that a Plaintiff may file his bill after the essoign day, and that if he gives a rule to plead on the first day of the term (that is) the first day the Court actually sits, he will substantially comply with the requisition of the statute of the 8 & 9 W. 3. The rule which has been obtained by the Defendant, has prevented the Plaintiff from doing this in the present case. The rule must be discharged, and the Defendant must appear and plead in four days. Rule discharged accordingly. May 15. erected by BUCKLAND V. BUTTERFIELD and Another. A conservatory ACTION on the case, in the nature of waste, by tenant for life, aged 70, against the assignees of years (who had her lessee from year to year, who had become bank tenant for a remainder for life, after the death of his lessor) on a brick foundation, attached to a dwelling-house, and communicating with it by windows opening into the conservatory and a flue passing into the parlour chimney, becomes part of the freehold, and cannot be removed by the tenant or his assignees. rupt rupt. The bankrupt was the son of the Plaintiff, and had also a remainder for life in the premises after her death. At Buckingham Lent assizes, 1820, before Graham B. the case proved was, that the Defendants had taken away from the premises let to the bankrupt a conservatory and a pinery. The conservatory, which had been purchased by the bankrupt and brought from a distance, was by him erected on a brick foundation fifteen inches deep: upon that was bedded a sill, over which was frame work covered with slate; the frame work was eight or nine feet high at the end, and about two in front. This conservatory was attached to the dwelling-house by eight cantilivers let nine inches into the wall, which cantilivers supported the rafters of the conservatory. Resting on the cantilivers was a balcony with iron rails. The conservatory was constructed with sliding glasses, paved with Portland stone, and connected with the parlour chimney by a flue. Two windows were opened from the dwelling-house into the conservatory, one out of the dining-room, another out of the library. A folding door was also opened into the balcony; so that when the conservatory was pulled down, that side of the house, to which it had been attached, became exposed to the weather. Surveyors who were called, stated that the house was worth 50%. a-year less after the conservatory and pinery had been removed. The learned Judge having stated his opinion that the Plaintiff ought to recover at least for the pinery and probably for the conservatory, the jury, estimating the Plaintiff's life at six years' purchase, gave a verdict for her, 3007. damages. Peake Serjt. having obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that this conservatory, though affixed to the freehold, was a matter of ornament, not beneficial to the premises, but lawfully removeable by 1820. BUCKLAND ข. BUTTER FIELD. 1820. BOLTON ข. EYLES. and all legal acts have relation thereto. This case was The rule Rule discharged accordingly. May 15. BUCKLAND V. BUTTERFIELD and Another. erected by A conservatory ACTION on the case, in the nature of waste, by tenant for life, aged 70, against the assignees of years (who had her lessee from year to year, who had become bank tenant for a remainder for life, after the death of his lessor) on a brick foundation, attached to a dwelling-house, and communicating with it by windows opening into the conservatory and a flue passing into the parlour chimney, becomes part of the freehold, and cannot be removed by the tenant or his assignees. rupt rupt. The bankrupt was the son of the Plaintiff, and had also a remainder for life in the premises after her death. At Buckingham Lent assizes, 1820, before Graham B. the case proved was, that the Defendants had taken away from the premises let to the bankrupt a conservatory and a pinery. The conservatory, which had been purchased by the bankrupt and brought from a distance, was by him erected on a brick foundation fifteen inches deep: upon that was bedded a sill, over which was frame work covered with slate; the frame work was eight or nine feet high at the end, and about two in front. This conservatory was attached to the dwelling-house by eight cantilivers let nine inches into the wall, which cantilivers supported the rafters of the conservatory. Resting on the cantilivers was a balcony with iron rails. The conservatory was constructed with sliding glasses, paved with Portland stone, and connected with the parlour chimney by a flue. Two windows were opened from the dwelling-house into the conservatory, one out of the dining-room, another out of the library. A folding door was also opened into the balcony; so that when the conservatory was pulled down, that side of the house, to which it had been attached, became exposed to the weather. Surveyors who were called, stated that the house was worth 50%. a-year less after the conservatory and pinery had been removed. The learned Judge having stated his opinion that the Plaintiff ought to recover at least for the pinery and probably for the conservatory, the jury, estimating the Plaintiff's life at six years' purchase, gave a verdict for her, 3001. damages. Peake Serjt. having obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that this conservatory, though affixed to the freehold, was a matter of ornament, not beneficial to the premises, but lawfully removeable by E 4 the 1820. BUCKLAND ข. BUTTER FIELD. 1820. BUCKLAND V. BUTTER- the tenant, and that at all events the damages were excessive. Blosset Serjt. shewed cause against the rule. This conservatory was not only affixed to the freehold, but actually formed a part of the dwelling-house, doors of communication having been made out of the sitting room, so that, when the conservatory was pulled down, the adjoining part of the house was rendered uninhabitable, being entirely exposed to the inclemency of the atmosphere. In all the cases, not excepting those that relate to the removal of ornamental constructions or additions, it has been considered, among other things, whether the tenant placed them on the premises with a view to removal, or no. Here, the party, though tenant from year to year, was entitled to the reversion after the death of his mother, to whom he was tenant, and he would never have made so costly an addition to his house as tenant from year to year, unless with a view to improve his reversionary interest. The damages, if estimated according to the tables set forth for life insurances by act of parliament, are perfectly fair; the Plaintiff's life being worth six years' purchase, and the damage done having deteriorated her property to the amount of 50l. a-year. Peake, in support of his rule. The conservatory was an erection merely for the purpose of ornament or pleasure; it neither formed part of the habitation nor rendered it more convenient. So far from being certainly beneficial to the property or necessary to its occupation, it might render it of less value in the eyes of a succeeding tenant, as an expensive and useless incumbrance. Whatever the law may be, with respect to parties who stand in other relations to each other, yet as between landlord and tenant, the tenant has a right to remove all ornamental erections which do not im |