But regardless of whether the entry was forcible, we can see no escape from the conclusion that it was wrongful. The claim that Mr. Raynes had no authority to lease the premises to plaintiff on August 13 militates equally airist defendant; for when - its alleged lease was executed, Mr. Raynes had no greater rights than on August 13. His new lease though executed on September 17, did not take. effect until October 1. It was a quite different instrument than its predecessor, with many more conditions and a distinct term (October 1, 1923, to March 1, 1925) but, until-it- went into force, the rights of Raynes were governed-by the instrument of August 1 whose terms were made available to plaintiff and gave him a right of possession prior to defendant's.
It is further alleged in the answer that plaintifis rights were terminated for non-payment of rent. But Mr. Raynes hims:)f, on the witness stand, disclaimed that, stating that rent was not to begin until building operations commenced and that his one grivacne against plaintiff -was the slowness of said operations. In fact plaintiff's cheque for a full month's rent sent Mr. Raynes on October 3 was returned by the latter without stating any reason. Finally, mere non-payment would not justify either Mr. Raynes or his agent in entering the premises without plaintifis consent and driving away the caretakers. Had there been actual non-payment of rent the remedy would have been a judicial proceeding to collect it and eject the tenant. Neither defendant nor the one under whom he claimed could take the law into its own hands. During a long period the English Parliament enacted legislation, whick later became common law in America, penalizing possession acquired in that way.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.