(Adjourned)
Shanghai, May 27.
In the United "States Court for Ching before Judge Helmick yesterday the Colgate Palmolive Poet Ca. 51 Canton Ra. claimed judgment wpa? Inst the Shanghai Stevedoring Ca, for the sum of $8,040.32 in respect of the non-delivery of certain cargoes hand Ted' by the. defendants, Messrs, Allman, Davis and Kops represented the plaintiffs and Dr. G. Sellett anc Mr. H. G. Nelson represented the defendants, After a formal opening the case was adjourned unfit May 31, covenant and a covenant restricted to the lessors "or persons claiming through or under them" was that the former exter led to Interruption by persons lawfully claiming "by title paramount." From consideration of eases which had been cited it seemed to him that if the doctrine in Parddine v, Jane (1647) was to prevail (namely, that expulsion trespasser does not relieve the tenant from liability to pay rent). the only distinction that could be drawn First Special Court Three Russians Held Shanghai, May 24.
Vasily Boolatoft, Theodore Biingoft and Leonid Krivenoff were remanded until next week by the First Special District Court on suspicion of being. concerned with three' others in the theft of radio apparatus from the ada Tading Ca. in Paoting Toad, tween the two forms of covenant was with regard 0 the acts of per sons claiming by title paramount.
He was satisfied that where the aim was for rent, a defendant was entitled to raise asia defence the sus-Pension of his liability to pay rent by reason of eviction. Evie~ tion was one type of breach of coven-fant for quiet enjoyment. Unless tthe breach amounted to an eviction, however, there was no suspension of the Wablilty to pay rent, and the remedy then was to bring an action for damages for breach of covenant.
He was satisfied that Mr. Piper had acted reasonably in everything he had done. as his quiet enjoyment of the premises without doubt had been interrupted. It did not necessar-follow from this, however, that there had been an eviction or any breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. He was not satisfied here that there had been an eviction at law at all; that really ended the matter and' he must hold that the defendant had no right to defend.
The defendant might have a cause of action for breach of covenant for Quiet enjoyment but it was not necessary for the Court now to decide that point. Any such claim would have to be the subject
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.