THE ROMAN LAW OF RENT.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 22 November 1880, Page 2

THE ROMAN LAW OF RENT.

» Mr "W. A.. Hunter writoa to tlie Mark Lnno Esnress on the above sub* jf>et as follows : — It mr\y not he without interest to Knslish nnd Scotch farmers to know ibe rule of the Koman Law, b^e! as they were on common sense and equily, 1 as to tbe obligation of a landlord to remit rent f l he gen-Tal principle laid do^n was that when serious damage was done to the crops through unforeseen and un» preventable c.iuse3. the loss fell on the landlord, and he was bound to remit the whole rent. Such causes were inundations, tempests, wnd or rain, also unusual depredations of locusts, jiclcdawj startling^, nnd, in addition, the blight. The same rue applied if diiinnne was dono l>y nn eirfcliqnake. It is an entire mi-stake to suppose that this equitable rule governed only the ease where a sort of partnership existed between laudlori and tenant. In such a case, as a matter of course, both the lo«8 ami the gain were shared with the landlord, and the Roman juriifc, in mnk : n« that remaik, is particularly careful to explain that rl;e principle of remission of rent applies when" the tenant pivs a fixed rent in money. The rule was subject to two exceptions deserving of notice. '1 1)9 landlord wa3 not bound io remit the rent if in the vetr's of the tenancy prereJ'Dg the disastrous yenr there had be?n exceptionally faroarblecrop?, AgaVo, i^* he did remit the rent, and exceptionally favorable seasons folio?* eri, he was entitled toon bick upon the year of remission nod demand the rent for that ye.-T. The idea was that the ' reab ought; not to be p.itl if some dia-uter, not anticipited by the parties' destroyed the crops, out of rehuM tbe rent was to be paid As the ]{()Oiau jurists put it— tbe former lost his seed, and it was fair that the landlord aiiould lose all his rent. But, of course, if the loss was compensated by extraordinary crops ia other years, a fund was created oufc of which both landlord and tenant couli be recouped and it was considered reasonable i.h«u tbe the 101-8 of rent should be made up to the landlord. Tlia Horn iv law — no clear and equ't* able — formed tbe b-sia of ih-3 French law, and most of the laws of Europe ; but in order to complete my statement one important qualiScatioa mast be made. The rule as fo remission applied only when tbe tenant had not by

express agreement uivlertoken n\\ riaka and to pay the rent i» any event, or here such risk wag not thrown oufe on the temnt by a sp&eul I eal custom. The presumption of law was ia •avor of the tenant, but be might make a contract in an opposite seuse, or his lease might be canstructed with regard to an opposite and recognised local custom.