Mr. Rennie appeared for the Plaintiff Mr. Harwood for the Defendant.
Mr. Rennie said the plaintiffs claim either poarension of the premises or to reattain defend-fant from certain breeches of agreement. [t was had violated the term of the louse in sub-letting the houses to Chinese; Iso thnt he prevented the plaintiff fromhaying necess to godown. Defendantadmits having done as plaintiff? charges him, but denies the unlawfulness of his doings. The'question was one of whether defendant acted lawfully in his proceeding. Defendant hind put a wall obstructing the entrance to godown without the ut of the plaintiff, but he contends he hind Randed in) There were two pointe; have erfect a right todo ao. (Plan of premises
Maintth night to have. access to the godown through that passage; and can they prevent Defendunt from sub-letting the premises to Chinese [Several letters were rend to prove that Messrs, Glover and Ca. let the premises for Tle. 900 per aunum to the end of the year with priviles to renew the lease for two yours; that Torck-Jer wrote to have repairs done to the house three days after, and requested thut the godown might be closed.)
The Godown was a large one and it is not Tikely thre plaintiffs would have given it up. Mr. Rennie quite admitted tht a tenant has a right to sublet any portion of his bouse, unless it is stipulated thnt be shall not do so, But in re-letting to Chinese, the case is difforent, us it vitintes the Insurance. It was for Court to decide whether it was not implied in the agreement that he should not do the lease gave him no such privilege. He would produce letter for a French landlord, expressing surpris eh a pr bbe allowed to d lied, that such a right was not allowed. He[Mr. R.] thought thut these nets sufficed to prove that defendant had no right to sublet to Chinese without. permission. He would get Mr, Groom to explain about the Wall, and Mr. Cheverton to prove the view of the Insurance Company in subletting to Chines B.A, Groom.—I am partner in Glover Dow &Co, I lid conversations with Mr. Torckler, about closing the door of the Godown, after the letter of the agreement was signed. I told him that Teould not shut tup. His to shutting it up was made in a subsequent letter. The closing of the door would prevent us from using the godown. It is of great importance to us. We pay Tls. 3,000 for the whole a and defendant merely pays Tls. 900 1 was first informed of this on the Lith July. "He asked that Chinese might be prevented from having access to the godown, I it was quite impossible to shut the door; the godown would be practically useless, The pa on the other side is avery narrow one. The object of putting up fences waste keep Chinese from passing Mr. Torckler's house.
Cross exnmined—I remember receiving the lotter of the 8th July spenkiny of a parting wall to be erected, nnd one door to be closed so thnt lie might huve the plume private, I refused those terms, I gave him notice several times. Treceived rent to the end of 1869; the rent was paid monthly. There ix another door to the godown. 1 don't know thut Meynard and Ca. have premises on the other side. 1 dont know of Ta-Zing being inhabited by Chinese; it was once. It belongs to Mesnard Cousin and Ca. I have not used the godown since letting it to Torck-Jer. Ttold Mr. Torckler that we could not hut the door on any condition, The agreement was made ina hurry. I agreed to put the premises in repair but refused to close the door. It was contemplated to make a lease is ritig, Iwas ausious to have everything ex-jin the louse before using the godown.
re Mr. Torckler accepted the terms of our letter of the 9th December, and went into the premises. My iden wae to wait till the end of the year, to make definite arrangements.
Mr. Cheverton. (Hongkong Fire Insurance Company):—The ordinary rate of Insuraw on foreign house is 2 per cent in Shungin on Chinese, 4to 5 per c houses inhabited by Chinese, cinsted us semi-European, 14 per cent. Mr. Torckler's premises were examined by our Surveyor. The rate w! we would charge the house would be 14 per cent, it being inhabited by Chinese und having part of it used as a kitchen. The rate is raised per cent on account of it being u xem European house. Ifa first class ed down, and if it was found that it had bern inhabited by Chinese, without due notice ing given, it would damage the Insurance risk.
Cross exainined—The stove on the premises increntes the risk. I don't know in whose room it was. I should only charge a European rink if Mr. Torckler lived there by himself. had any Chinese there I should be, guided by circumstances in determining the rate. Ifn policy is granted on a building and 3 quently occupied by Chinese without noti been given, it would come under the clause our policies, relating to such eases. Chinese servants living in the house do, not increase the risk. I know that Mr. Torckler applied for Insurance. My surveyor examined premises and gave me a report of their con tion. f took them as a semi-European risk.
To Mr. Rennie—The louse insured as a Harwood admitted the facta of the charge made against hi client. But contended that the letter of the 8th July. formed purt of the contract. The letter stipulated, thut the place should be put in repair and the door shut. On the second charge. His client bad a perfect right to sublet the houses, his toing so us not in any way damaged the premises.
ed that a landlord could not depart till its time bnd expired get his client to prove that the door referred to was to be closed, and he contended that a tenant bad a right to sublet unless there was a stipulation to the contrary. Ho denied that there was an implied contract not to sublet to Chinese. There was no permanent dannge done tothe premises. If the Insufance on it was increased that was n concern of the land lords purely. Ho contended that the letter of the 8th July formed part of the agreement.
Fred. Torcxirx—t had several conv tions about taking the premises. I was invited to come over and examine them and make any remarks Imight have. L wrote to Mr. Groom to explain obstacle which this door would beta mo if left open. He agreed to my terms verbally. My reason for writing on the 14th of July was, because the door had not been closed. Their first objection to the closing of t door was wade when I received notice to leave. I offered to pay the extra Insurance. I live on our Ekman to oocopy tree renee fee premises. Imade a written agreement for
the premises next door. Meynaed Cousin & Ca. have property on the somme block inhabited by Chinese. Thiave two tenants and their servants. My_ premises could not effect the Insurance risk No. 7 godown, any moretbanthe other houses in the neighbourhood, all being at equal di tances from it. Godowns Nos. 8 and 9 contain To Mr. Rennie—I took possession on ti 13: h. I remember getting a letter from Glover Dow & Ca. to go round and look at the French Tease. I wrote an answer: to this. I said noig about the godown door then. I do swear that Mr. Groom agreed to shut the door. I don't consider doi-g #0 would injure them in the least. Ilinve about 30 or 40 Chinese in my two houses. I sublet two to Chinese next door. I don't know what is stored in the godown at the back or by the side of it. I remember writing a letter on the 9th July. "It was to induce them to nccept the terms I bad offered them. I cerly thought my letter of the 8th, bai been ne cepted (Mr. Rennie here remarked, that in his letter of the Sth. He made use of the follo words. "Since you sy you cannot accept terms of miy letter of the 8th." Mr. Harwood To Mr. Harwood—By "special terms in my letter I meant the party wall. I would not have taken the premises without getting lege of putting up the purty wall. they would be of no use to me other Mr. Rennie—The defendant held the pre-certain terms. He refused to comply id therefore he ought out; or, if he Court did not tuk we, the Court would order him to desist violating the terms of their agreement. Mr. Groom tind sworn that he never ave his content to this agreement about closing the door. It is very unlikely thut he shi Mr. Torckler's letter of th he would be glad if proves that Bfr.
tro shut it. The improhabilty of th well aa his own letter, proves that no such agreement was made. Then ne to aube letting the prrimizes to Chinese. the Insurance was affected by it. There was he contended an implied; remise uvt to doit, and therefore wrongfully holding the premises. If his Lordabip thought different! ould ask him to restrain defend nut it quoted from Wood prove, that wh man uses the premises of another to do him injury, the law can The question of would settle the matter of the implied contract.
Murch 5.
Tudgment was delivered us follows In this petition, the prayer i either that the defendant be ordered to qui and deliver ap possession of certain premises, which he now holds of the plaintiffs ander an agreement for a louse, or else that he be trained by an injunction from com alleged breaches of agreement, viz: obstructing the plaintifis from having access to n certain godown belonging to them situated in the rear of the premises, to Chinese, to the peril and preciation thereof, and so as to increase the surable risk.
The defendant entered into possession of the premises in July Inst, after sone correspondence avto the terms, and he contends that one of these terms was that a certain door of a godown to the rear of the premises was to be closed and disused. I have enrofully rend the correspondence in question, and looking to the dates of the letters and the language used in them, I com to the conclusion tht the plaintiffs never ws sented to the closing of this d 2 part of the terms, and that the def although he may be onder a contrary impression, must be hell to huve accepted the lease without this term and, consequently, that he bias no right now to do any act to impede them in their necess to this door. But his doing so is not a ground of ejectment; nor do I see that this isa ease for an injunction, as the damage or imp ent occasioned to the plaintiffs, if any, not upon the premises agreed to be demised, and defendant is the same asit stronger who acted in a not see that the damage done to the plaintiffs, is supported by the evidence, as Mr. Groom says thit up this time they have n to use the door in_qne jon., however. admits inh prohibited the plaintiffs godown, and mninpet be enough if I express ied by agreement in doing
nion that, in any lease which the defer mmyy receive from the hands of the plaintiffs, he is not entitled to have this stipulation for the closing of this door inserted.
next ground of ejectment, or if that be refused, that for an injunction, is the underletting by the defendant of part of the premises to Chinese. While the negotiations for the lease were going on, the plaintiffs invited the defendant to look ut the terms of the French louse under which they themselves hold, as containing the terms with which he would hive to comply, and according to which their lease to him must, be drawn up. The defendant accepted the terme of this louse "'subject to certain exceptions agreed to writing," but which excep! it now oppon amount to nothing. What is m terial that the French louse contains therefore, quite certain that the plai to execute a lease coutnining no such term. It is, indeed, argued in their behalf that this being a French lease, and the property situated in the French concession, it is possible that by French Inv, the construction of such a lease may imply a condition not to under-let, No proof is given
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.