Judgement in Case Arising out of the Closing of the Palermo Judgement was given at the Mixed Court on Wednesday, when the hearing was resumed of the case wherein Mr. C. 8S. Maitland, the lessee of premises situated at No. 1 Jukong Road, claimed from the sub-lessee, Mr. M. Goldman, the sum of $3.000 in respects of arrears in_rent.
The defendant was adjudged to pay one month's rent ($1,000) and the costs of the action. At the request of Mr. P. W. Goldring, counsel for defendant, execution was stayed pending the case being taken before H. M. Supreme Court.
It will be recalled that at the previous hearing counsel for plaintiff, Mr. L. Kentwell, pointed out that the premises were known as the "Palermo Cafe." and the agreement entered into by the respective parties would have been considered under Anglo-American law as a contract for immoral pur-
Mr. Goldring laid stress upon the fact that letters which passed between the respective parties made it clear that if the rent was not paid within 16 days the defendant would be ejected. On February 17 or 18 the plaintiff resumed possession.
Mr. Kentwell said that the defendant had intimated that he did not understand the terms of the contract, which was incredible. The terms were very clear. Mr. Goldman had two weeks in which to pay the rent, due on December 25 last year. It was agreed that a deposit of $3,000 representing three months' rent should be paid to Mr. Mait-. land. It was to be paid before any deduction could be made in the~ deposit. The contract laid it down that failure to pay the rent would subject the sub-lessee to forfeiture of the deposit. There was no evidence to prove that defendant was summarily ejected. Mr. Maitland had always been in possession. Because the cafe could not keep open until four and five o'clock in the mornings, the defendant decided to close it, and it was therefore not profitable to continue the lease.
In giving judgement, the Bench held that the contract would in any case have been cancelled by the action of the Chinese authorities. Unless the business could be carried on under the old conditions the bar could not be open. Therefore the agreement terminated on December 31, and the plaintiff was entitled to one month's rent.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.