An appeal by defendant in the case of the Eastern Advertising Agency v. J. Tf. Hammond was heard in H. M. Supreme Court on Monday by Sir Skinner Turner, Chief Judge, and Mr. Peter Grain, Assistant Judge, sitting as the Full Court.
The case was heard by Judge Grain and a jury on October 1, 1920, and the facts (as alleged by the plaintiff company) were that they rented three rooms and a hallway at No, 6 Foochow oad from' Mr. Hammond, at a monthly rental of Tls. 300, the landlord to furnish "taxes, heat, water and light (to 200 th candle-power rer room) free of charge," plaintiffs to deposit. Tls. 600, which was done. Mr, Hammond demanded payment for the light consumed, at the rate of Ts. 20 per month, and upon the company refusing to pay this, he cut off the electric light supply and refused to renew it unless the amount demanded were paid. The company alleged that its business, dependent upon. artificial light, was interfered with, and they were compelled to seek other premises, suffering damages thereby, They complained that they lost a commission, of 10 per cent. on $5,000, the value of five pictures which they had contracted with Prof. Adler to restore for the Russian Public Library, and they claimed $638 damages and Ts. 2,000 general damages. The jury awarded, damages in the sum of Tls. 701 and $600, and judgment was given accordingly.
Mr. Hammond now appealed against this, judgment, on the following grounds:—1. That there was finding by the jury to warrant the entering up of judgment for the plaintifis.
2. That on the findings of the jury, judgment should have been entered up for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claim.
3. That there was no evidence to support the award by the jury of Tls. 100 for loss of business by reason of removal.
4. That the verdict of the jury awarding $600 to the plaintiffs as damages was against the weight of evidence.
5, That the defendant has dis covered fresh evidence in respect of the issue raised with respect to the Russian Publ''e Library pictures which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered before the trial.
6. That the learned Assistant Judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence, 7. That the learned Assistant Judge orred in not leaving to the jury any question relative to paragraphs one and two of the de
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.