
    John Jenkins v. Edward H. Calvert.
    Goods fraudulently removed by the tenant, although not secretly or clandestinely, may be followed and distrained by the landlord.
    The tenant’s removal of his goods before’the'expiration of the term, without the knowledge of the landlord, and without paying the rent, is a fact from which the jury may infer that the removal was fraudulent as to the landlord.
    A receipt for the last year’s rent, is evidence that the rent for the preceding years has been paid.
    •Replevin.
    
      Mr. Key, for the plaintiff,
    prayed, the Court to instruct the jury, that if, &c. “the tenant removed the goods from the premises in the day-time, openly, and with the knowledge of the neighborhood, then the defendant could not follow and dis-train the goods, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover.”
    Which instruction the Court refused to give, (Moksell, J., dissenting.)
    
      Mr. Key
    
    then made the same prayer, with this addition, “ unless the defendant shall prove to the satisfaction of the jury, that the removal was fraudulently intended to prevent the landlord from distraining. And the circumstance of the landlord’s not being apprised of the day of such intended removal, is not a circumstance from which the jury may infer such fraud.”
    Which, instruction the Court also refused to give, (MoRsell J., dissenting.)
    
      Mr. Key then prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that if, &c. the rent of 1825 was paid, and a receipt therefor given by the landlord, they ought to presume that the rents of the preceding years were paid also, unless the defendant should show that they were not paid.
   Which instruction the Court gave nem. con.  