Mrs. W. J. Andrews was the! defendant in an action for Tls. 120) brought by Mrs, Bebee Roy in H. M. Supreme Court on July 14, before Judge G, W. King. It was alleged that the sum claimed represented monthly rental of an apartment 186" Seymour. Road which had been vacated without adequate] notice.
Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.
Giving evidence, the plaintiff caid that her house at 136 Seymour Road iwas sub-divided into five apartments, lone of which had been rented by the Jdefendant on April 14 subject to six-month agreement. This agreement had subsequently been can-'There was no agreement On June 14 th defend-
Jant had given her 14 days' notice jand on June 28 had vacated the apartment after giving her a crossed [cheque for Tls. 60, This cheque was not honoured, the bank saying that} the signature was irregular. Despite the absence of an agreement: jin writing, 1€ was customary, she believed, for a month's notice to be! given when rent was paid by the month, and she claimed this sura.
Questioned by the defendant, the plaintiff denied having received a other cheque by post from the defendsnt's husband, which had been paid by the bank. She had n broken the verbal agreement arrived Jat between them by removing fur: ture which was in the apartmers Jwhen it had been originally rents She had removed a piano, but only after the sanction of the defendant frad been obtained. The apartment had been rented cly the defendant} and not by her husband, Defendant—Your Lordship, I nev-ler made a written agreement. At agreement was in my husband's His Lordship—But isn't that year name, too?
Defendant—Yes, but my: husband paid the rent.
His Lordship—Bat didn't you get the money from your husband?
Defendant—Yes, but my husband
only: as his agent, His Lordship—Yes, but in law aw ie. Your argument seems to amount to this: That the plaintiff should sue your husband—she, by the way {seldom in Shang.
The defendant, giving evidence, said that there had been no written fagveement regarding the flat or the notice of removal that should be given, There had not even been an inventory of the furniture, She had moved out on June 28 after giving the cheque in question but could not say if the cheque had been cashed. She had made no effort to see if the othe reheque had been cashed also, The plaintiff had removed 'a piano and other furniture, had refused to famigate a boy's room, and in other ways failed to live up to the usual tenancy conditions, That was why she had left the apartment.
ing judgment, his Lordship said that i was a great pity. the parties 6 the action could not have settled their differences out of court, He must give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed With the proviso that if the second cheque which the defendant said her husband thad sent the plainti turned up before judgment was oxen cuted its value must be allowed for.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.