Dismissal of an Action for Ejectment The lease of No. 53 Kiangse Road. was the subject of proceedings in H. M. Supreme Court last Friday before his Honour Judge Skinner Turner.
On behalf of the tenant, Emily Moore, application was made by Mr. M. Reader Harris for dismissal of an action for ejectment, by Messrs. Foster McClellan, plaintiffs having failed to deliver a statement of claim.
Mr. Harris asked for dismissal of the action for want of prosecution. As far as he knew, the local rules contained no provision for dismissal of an action in default of the filing of pleadings, and he, therefore, proceeded under the rules. of the Supreme Court at Home.
Mr. J._B. Davies, appearing for Messrs. Foster, McClellan & Ca., obtained the Court's permission to explain. the facts of the case with a view of showing that plaintiffs should not be called upon to pay costs. His clients, he -said, purchased the property without any knowledge of an existing lease. They wished to pull the building: down and build offices on. the site, and at once gave the tenant a month's notice to quit. A letter was received stating that the tenant held a written lease on the premises, and she refused to vacate the house until the expiration of the lease. Permission to inspect the lease was then requested, and the reply to this was that the document. was locked up in Mr. Musso's pri~ vote safe, and could not be seen until his return to Shanghai. Upon Mr. Musso's return, applica~ tion to inspect the lease was again made, but Mr. Harris replied that his client had the lease but refused to allow plaintiffs to see it. In these circumstances, there was no other course open to plaintiffs but to take proceedings for an ejectment order. When the matter came before the Court an order for pleadings was made, and defendant then produced the lease. As soon as plaintiffs saw it, they were satisfied that the document was valid, and, therefore, did not wish to continue the action. Counsel submitted that from the first his clients were entitled to inspect the lease, and these proceedings were due entirely to the fact of its not being disclose ed. Therefore, he thought they should not be made to pay the costs of the case.
Mr. Reader Harris replied that the counterpart of the lease should have been in plaintiff's possession. Defendant had done nothing wrong. She was not bound to disclose the lease until the action was brought.
Mr. Davies said his clients never had a copy of the landlord's lease. If they had had it, the action would not have been brought, They thought defendant was tenant from month to month. 1 His Lordship—My difficulty is,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.