Shanghai, 29th April. Before F. 8. A. Bourse, Exy., Acting Chief Justice.
B. Argiysoy ap A. Dattas ce, H. B.
The plaintifis were represented by Mr. A. M. Latter, and no counsel appeared for the defendant.
The Petition reads as follows 1. The plaintiffs are British subjects and carry-on business as architects and land agents at Shanghai. The defendant is a British subject and resides at 101 Range Road, Shanghai.
2 By an agreement of lease dated the Sth March 1901 and made between J. C. Grant thereinafter called the lessor of the one part and the defendant thereinafter called the lessee of the other part for the considerations therein appearing the lessor agreed to. let and the defendant agreed to take the premises known at 101 Range Road aforesaid for the term of one year as from first of April 1901 to the Ist March 1902.
3. By the said agreement the defendant agreed that at the end of the said term of one year ho would peaceably and quietly leave surrender and yield up unto the lessor or his lawfully accredited agent the_said premises "A. By an indenture dated the 15th day of November 1901 and made between the said J.C, Grant of the one part and the plaintiffs of the other part the said J. C. Grant assigned granted and conveyed unto and to the use of the plaintiffs in perpetuity all the said premises subject to the burden and together with the benefits of the agreement, mentioned in paragraph 2 and 3 hereof.
The term of one year mentioned in paragraph 2 has now expired. The de-fondant has failed to give up possession of the said premises.
The plaintiffs therefore pray 1. Possession of the said premises.
2. The costs of this s 3. Such further or other relief as to this Court seems just.
The answer of t lhe above-named defendant to the petition of the above-named plaintiffs showeth as follows:
Clauses 1, 2 and 8 I acknowledge as correct. 1 Clause 4—I append a letter from J. C. Grant informing me that rents would be collected by plaintiffs, on and after Ist ember, as agents for the proprietor, who T have since discovered to be Mr. Chang residing at No. 525 Wuchane Road.. Plaintiffs would not disclose his identity.
Clause 5—Reasons for not giving up the premises. Insufficient notice to quit. Impossibility of obtaining other accommodation. option of renewal of lease given by plaintiffs despite every effort on any part to make terms.
therefore pray that:
ffs offer me renewal of lease on their own terms.
2. The costs of this suit.
8. Such other relief as the case may re~ quire. letter to his answer but was told that it Defendant said_he had appended a as not in order. He wished therefore to refer to the letter in his answer.
Mr, Latter said that this was a simple case in which defendant's Tease had ¢x-pired and the owners required possession. Defendant had been in arrears with his rent and had paid five months altogether, four of which had to be sued for in the Civil Summary Court before his clients could obtain payment. His clients were the owners of the property and to prevent the defendant from questioning the point he would put in the title deed.
His Lordship said that Counsel would not have to prove anything until he reached paragraph 5 of the petition, secing that defendant admitted the terms of the original lease.
Mr. Latter said he would put in the lease, which was dated the 15th March 1901, in which defendant agreed to give up possession at the end of the year. He would call Mr. Dallas to prove the conveyance, and he would pu: in the Court records showing four summonses and payment into Court on those summonses by the defendant.
In reply to the Court defendant said he had paid the money into Court on each occasion, because plaintiffs letter to him notifying that unless he paid the rent before a certain date thes would take into Court—reached him under a re; ed cover through the post after the of the summons.
Mr. Latter said that the November rent was paid into Court on the 16th Jan. and on the 20th February defendant paid the December rent into court. On the 17th March defendant paid the rent for February also into Court. On the 27th March hie paid the March rent, but not into Court.
Defendant wished to hand in a cheque for the April rent Mr. Latter said that his clients did not want to take the rent for April. The tenancy terminated in March and accord it to the lease the rent was parable in ad vance. He would now call Mr. Dallas to prove the conveyance.
Arthur Dallas, sworn, stated that he was a partner in plaintifis firm. He bought this property from Mr. J. C. Grant on the 15th November 1901. He produced the title deed from Mr. Grant which was executed in his presence at the Britfsh Land Office.
He bought the property for Tls. 16.000. He produced the hank cheque with which he paid for the property. The cheque was for Tls. 15,800 while in the conveyance it was stated that the property was sold for Tls. 16,000. The difference was for brokerage. It was agreed between him and Mr. Grant that the first two months rent after the purchase of the property should be collected by Mr. Grant, but Mr. Grant was unable to get it from defendant and his firm had to pay Mr. Grant. Ho received four months' rent through the Court. Witness here testified to some correspondence exchanged Between his firm and the defendant with' reference to rent in arrears and giving notice of the termination of the Ieaso, and refusing to renew same or ing any extension beyond the end of fare!
He had entered into an agree ment to let the house to Mr. Nimrod (agreement put in), and by reason of defendant's conduct he had been unable to ry out the agreement with Mr. Nim rod, who had made a claim against firm for damages.
Cross-examined: Will you give me your primary reason for refusing to renew the Tease?
it. Latter objected to the question and his Lordship upheld the objection.
Cros:-examination continued: I inter-slewed you in your private house on the 9th March and did you not promise me on that occasion to ask your clerk Mr. Lantl to see if he could got me another house?—I made no definite promise. I said I would speak to Mr. Land and sce what could be done.
T then said that I would pay you all onto standing rent 2—No, you did not say that.
On the Sth March'didn't you refuse to speak to me when I called?—I ordered you out of my office.
Tmmediately. afterwards you signed the lease after I had informed you that T could not vacate the house at the end of March?—Tho lease was signed on that day but it was arranged before.
Did you write me this letter offering me another house?—I offered you a house at the back of the Metropole Hotel.
Are you aware of the character of the locality in which you asked my family to Mr. Latter objected to the question.
His Lordship said that. the plaintiffs came to Court to enforce their legal rights and he could not deal with any other matter than what they were entitled to.
Did you intend to offer this house to my family'as an insult or not?—Certainly not. I have a letter from you saying that the house would suit you Defendant: When i wrote that letter I was not aware of the character of the locality.
His Lordship said the question was whether the plaintiffs were legally ontifled to the possession of the house and that was the only question he could deal with.
Mr, Latter said that he had established. his title to the possession of the house. He would ask for a further order for damages because at the time the petition was drawn up he was not awaresthat Mr. {Nimrod would claim any dam they could not give lim poses Jhouse. Counsel would ask for THs. 55 for!a_month's and Tls. 58 which Mr, Nimrod claimed as dam: They had made a contract with him which they could not fulfil, owing to the action of the dofendant.' He would ask for an or possession of the house and Tls. 1 rent and damages.
Defentant said he wished to put in a letter from Me. J.C. Grant in which it was stated that 4 ents for the owners. He asked p fs to inform him who was the landlord but they. refused to do His Lordship said that plaintiffs being the legal owners it did not matter whether they had anybody behind them.
Defendant said h+ saw a Chinaman himself who said that he wis the owner and that the plaintiffs were his agents.
Mr. Luter denied shat such was the ease, His Lord-hip said that if defendant had found the equitable owner of the prop:
lif he had been inclined to deal with the property as defendant wished he would i d the plaintitl Defendant dits and duties handed by Mr. Grant to the pi intifis and were in fact the Tegal owner Defendant said he was now to defend [himself for not having vacated th premises according to the Tense made with Mr. Grant. Plaintiffs had pitted against one of the great legal lights in Shang-{hai ud it was impossible for him to enter into the of the law, but he trusted to his Lordship's judgment to combine equity {and law thus allowing him to come ina decent second. He admitted the crime having been behind in the payment of his rent, and thus causing plaintiffs " certain amount of trouble and himself even mote, but he maintained that Mr. Chang, the Chinese proprietor, was no loser. Plaintitis (had earned their commission and he was treated with scant civility. From the moment he found he could not get a renewal of the lease he seeched in vain from the front to the new French Road everywhere for a house, anil had used every means in his power to. come' some arrangement with plaintiff. He had pointed out that it was impossible for him to obtain another house.
Mr. Latter objected to defendant making serious imputations.
His Lordship said he had told defendant jhow the matter stood. M eter runtest give defendant an opportunity to make his defence. Defendant was not making serious imputations.
Defendant said that Mr. Grant had told him that one month's notice was the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.