Fire and Rent
A judge rules against tenants whose homes burned down, sparking an uproar in the jury box.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A case involving the rights of tenants was heard before Justice Rivers and a jury. Most tenants in the burned district had paid their June rent in advance; after the fire, some landlords returned the money, but others, including J. O. Kenyon, refused. The tenants sued to recover their funds. Justice Rivers told the jury that there were no facts to decide, and that under the law as he interpreted it, they must find for the defendant landlord. The jury refused to comply, deliberating for two hours before reporting an impasse and being discharged. Justice Rivers remarked that while he wished the law were different, he was bound to interpret it as written, even though it meant tenants lost their rent after losing their homes.
“He held that all the decisions went to favor the view he took of the case. He had paid in advance for quarters in the burnt district and wished the law was the other way.”
This 1889 case highlights the stark power imbalance in landlord-tenant law, a recurring struggle that continues to shape current housing policy discussions regarding renters' protections during emergencies.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.