Lease Assignment Not Proved, Judge Rules An action for'payment of rental arrears which was brought against Mr. L. C. Hayley by Mr. S. D. Zee, was dismissed in the United States Court for China, by Acting Judge N. E. Lurton, yesterday afternoon, whilst another action involving the same two parties would have to be considered by the judge before he could give judgment.
Mr. S. D. Zee, owner of the Da Chang Auto Body Works, questioned by his attorney, M. P. Premet, told the court that in July 1935 Mr. Hayley came to him and ordered a body to be built on an American chassis. Witness quoted him a price of $600 for the whole job, but when the truck was actually delivered at the beginning of August, Mr. Zee claims, the price was reduced to $520 in view jof the friendship that had existed between him and the defendant. Mr. Hayley, according to the same witness, sent another man to take delivery jof the vehicle and he himself accompanied him to the offices of Mr. Hayley to present the bill. He then said that he was asked to wait for payment for a few days and received $200 on account during September 1935.
Questioned by his attorney, he said that it was impossible to do the work for $200 and that with the present cost of materials the same job would probably cost around $800. In addition to the unpaid balance of this account which amounted to $320,. the plaintiff claimed í' four months' back rental amounting to $400 and covering the period from September to December 1937. In the box, the witness said that Mr. Hayley made a contract with the late Mr. H, C. Wong in March 1934 for premises at 631 Avenue Foch, where the defendant had a vulcanizing business and gasoline station. Mr. Wong, who died during last year's hostilities, had transferred the lease to Mr. Zee whojin turn acted for a Chinese Realty Company for which he acted as agent. Mr. Hayley, according to the witness, was notified in writing that he would have to pay future rentals to Mr. Zee. Questioned by his attorney, Mr.)Zee told the court that he had not been notified of a transfer of his business which Mr. Hayley had made.
Cross-examined by Mr. P. F. Kops acting for the defendant, Mr. Zee denied that another man accompanied Mr. Hayley when he ordered the chassis for the truck. He also said that the bill was made out to the Checker Baggage Transport Ca. and that, although the cheque for $200 was signed by a Mr. Wilson, it had been given to him by Mr. Hayley. He also denied that he had agreed to build the body for $500 plus $20 for some extra equipment and repeated that he had reduced the original price of his own free will. With regard to the property at 631 Avenue Foch, Mr. Zee said that the Sing Vu Realty Ca, are the owners while he actually is the tenant and Mr. Harley was the subtenant.. The rent which originally had been fixed at $145 in the lease, was reduced to $135 in 1936 and to $100 when the defendant was alleged to have come to him to ask for a reduction.
Mr. Hayley then entered the witness box and was questioned by both attorneys, after which Judge Lurton said that he could not give judgment for the plaintiffs as far as the rentals were concerned because, there was no document to prove that the late Mr. Wong had actually transferred the lease to Mr. Zee. As for the action regarding the truck, he would have to consider the evidence before giving judgment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.