Continuing, the Judge stated that defendant's husband had said that this was done to protect the servants" belongings but the defendant's explanation was that the plaintiffs had no right to the rooms which were not included in the leases and were only given to tenants who required them on the understanding that they "observed the conditions."
"I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs' evidence as to the negotiations which preceded the signature of the agreements was admissible to show what was the intention of the parties at the signature, and I am satisfied on the evidence as a whole that the expression "No—Apartment" jin the agreements was intended by both parties at the time to include the servants' rooms," the Judge continued. "Further that the so-called conditions alleged attaching to the use of the rooms were neither more or less than such regulations for the conduct and behaviour of Chinese servants as are in force in all well-conducted apart. ment houses and are now more nece: sary than ever; the remedy for breach of them is by complaint to the tenant concerned or, if that proves futile, by determination of the tenancies, but not by pulling down partitions and boarding up entrances which were the measures adopted here.
"A landlord has no right at common law to enter demised premises for any purpose whatever, even to repair them unless there is a distinct stipulation to that effect. In these agreements there is no such stipulation to that effect but only a provision for re-entry in the event that the rent is in arrear or on breach of any other stipulation on the part of the tenant."
(The complete judgment will be published in the "North-Chins Herald" on November 16.)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.