In the course of a lengthy address, Mr. Hammond contended that there wag no real finding by the jury as to the alleged breach of contract on which plaintifis cade was rested, and there was no evidence that either he or his agents cut off the light. If he were to be bound by the act of his servant, it was most material it should be shown that he gave authority for the alleged cutting off of the light. It might have been done under plaintiff's influence, in order to get rid of the lease.
The Chief Judge—Does he not presumably act under your authority if he is your servant?
Mr. Hammond—In the ordinary course of his duties, but not in all ings.
Continuing, Mr, Hammond emphasized the form of the jury's verdict—that they were "strongly of the opinion" that he caused the light te be cut off, and argued that they were not justified in expressing an "opinion," and that in any case an "opinion" was not sufficient to cancel a written document. It was alleged that he cut off the light on February 15, but he did not hear about the light not working until the 19th, and he then promised to have the matter attended to, but it was overlooked. On the following: Monday, he received a letter from their. solicitor, Mr. Goldring, claiming Tls. 1,000 damages for being without light for four days, and the return of their deposit of Tls. 600, but the company had moved out two days before the letter was written.
Mr, Hammond suggested to the Court that this letter was clear bluff, and that all the company wanted wags to get out of their contract and get their deposit back. There was no reason why he should want to cut the lights off or get rid of them. Rents were coming down and he had a deposit of two months rent and was quite safe. Mr. Hammond contended that the jury had been unduly influenced by hearsay evidence, plaintiff having said he wished. to relet the premises because he had heard he would have trouble with him as landlord. Plaintiff supported this position by saying that when he advertised the flat people came to inquire and, as soon they found he (Mr. Hammond) was} the landlord they would not take; the flat. This was another piece of hearsay evidence which had influenced ths jury and should not have been allowed on the record. The learned Assistant Judge should have directed them to pay no attention to that kind of talk.
As plaintiffs found they could not afford to stay in the premises, he gave them permission to sublet if they could, but they were unsuccessful, and the only thing they could do was to clear out. They had a' clear reason for desiring to repudiate the lease, being without funds. As to the contracts alleged to have been lost through his action, Mr, Hammond submitted that cne-was simply a circular letter sent to many people asking for quotations.
QUERY AS TO PICTURES, Continuing, Mr, Hammond went into the question' of cutting off the light in detail, pointing out that the light could not be cut off from the outside without affecting the light of two other tenants, and he referred to a number of contingent cies in which it might have occurred without his knowledge or responsibility. He went on to say that the jury's award of Tis, 100 against him was inconsistent with their finding of Tls. 1 for five days' interruption of business, which could only mean they found no real profitable business~wag carried on. It was impossible that the business could have been ruined in so short a time. Dealing with the alleged loss on the contract to restore pictures for the Russian Library, Mr. Hiammond applied for permission to call fresh evidence on this part of the case, alleging that he was in possession of knowledge that these pictures did not exist. He would be able to prove that a name had been forged in this connexion.
On this point, Mr. MacDonald, for respondents, submitted that appellant should not be allowed to depart. from the usual procedure, which he had ample opportunity of following. If the indulgence were allowed, however, he should be directed to pay all costs to date. Counsel contended that the wording of the jury's finding, that they were "strongly of opinion" (that Mr. Hammond was responsible for cutting off the electric light) was equal to a finding of fact; but the phrase was adopted because no one actually saw Mr. Hammond, or his servant cut off the lights. It: was an inference which the jury were justified in drawing from the evidence. They had ample evidence before them on which to base the damages awarded.
Their Lordships reserved judgment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.