Mr. Hartigan to Return Tis, 1,200 to Chinese Client: Fee for Lease Never Procured Judgment was given in the U. S. Court on Thursday by Judge M.D. Purdy for plaintiff? in. [the action of Li Chok-siang v. Arthur} Allen and Leonard W. Hartigan for Tls. 1,200, which sum plaintiff alleged he had paid to Mr. Hartigan, to procure the lease of premises situated at 10 Broadway. At a previous hearing, Mr. S. H. Lewis, for plaintiff, stated that Mr. Allan was not morally responsible in the action. Mr. C. S. Franklin repre-[sented defendant.
The judgment stated that Hartian, according to the contract! between them, was to receive a total of Tls. 2,400, out of which he was to pay the lessor, Mahriah's, Ld, or the sub-tenant, the Shanghai Stores Ca, such sums as he saw fit and that it was understood that Hattigan iwas to retain the balance for his services. The lease was to be taken in the name of Hartigan, or in the name of Allan & Hartigan, and plaintiff should pay the rent to Hartigan, who accepted the employment and plaintiff paid over the [sum of Tls. 1,200 on June 29, 1923, Continuing, the judgment stated that plaintiff was in possession of the premises at the time, but had received notice to quit them in 'September, when the lease expired.' Conferences between Hartigan and various parties continued for several weeks, which apparently proved, abortive and Hartigan notified that he could not procure the lease, whereupon defendant tried on many! to obtain the return of his! en, according' to his entered into—_ne-with the Shanghai [Stores (sub-tenants) and claimed that he. notified plaintiff lease was "available,"
that Tls. 1,500 more was troduced as evidence and it stated [that the premises should not be sublet without consent of the lessor. There was nothing in evidence, the judgment continued, to indicate' that their consent had ever been obtain-led, even if an agreement had been come to between the manager of the [Stores and Hartigan, "I am, therefore, constrained to find, as a fact, that defendant failed to procure a lease of the premises tract the plaintiff of June 28, as he had agreed to do in his con-
1928," said the Judge.
further letter then informed plaintiff that he was not entitled the repayment of moneys advanced for "legal services," further informing him that plaintiff intended to hold him accountable for the remaining Tls. 1,200, "due to us for jour services." "Plaintiff then tried further to get Hartigan to secure ithe lease. Defendant admitted, in giving evidence, his Honour further stated, that no portion of the money ment. had been used to secure the agree
am therefore,". continued the Jiudgment, "forced to' the conclusion, with considerable reluctance, that 3 lease of the premises was not made fayallable,' as claimed by defendant, Judgment was then entered for Tls. 1,200 and interest at six per Jeent. from Sune 29, 1923, with costs,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.