204
of three years from the 1st day of July, 1900, at a monthly rent of $300, free of taxes.
It was also part of the said agreement that the defendant as landlord should pay the sum of sixty dollars in respect of any paint. ing and limewashing or colour-washing which should thereafter be executed upon the raid premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, but that any expenditure over and above the said sum of sixty dollars which should be incurred in limewashing and reparing, etc., the said premises should be paid by the said tenant.
:
4. The agreement which is referred to in the immediately prec ding paragraph hereof was not signed by the defendant or by any one on his behalf. The plaintiff, however, relies upon the following six acts of part performance and each of them as to taking this case cut of the Statute of Frauds, namely:-
(1) The admission by the defendant of the plaintiff into possession of the said g down in pursuance of the said agreement.
(2) The acceptance by the defendant from the plaintiff of rent for the said godown at the rate of fifty dollars a month free of taxes, being the rate stipulated by the said agreement.
(3) The expenditure of money by the plaintiff upon the faith of the said agreement with the knowledg of and without objection by the de- fendant in levelling and cementing the floor of the said godown.
(4) The expenditure by the plaintiff with the knowledge and approval of the defendant upon the faith of the said agreement and of the defendant's said undertaking there in to pay to the plaintiff the sum of sixty dollars in respect thereof of 8 sum of eighty-nine dollars upon the colour-washing and painting of the said premises, No. 12, Queen's Road Central.
(5) The expenditure of money by the plain tiff upon the faith of the said agreement with the knowledge of and without objection by the defendant in altering and enlarging his (the plaintiff's) office in the said premises No. 12, Queens Road Central.
(6) The expenditure of money by the plain- tiff upon the faith of the said agreement with the knowledge of and without objection by the defendant in extending electric light in his said premises, No. 12, Queen's Road Central.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
.
[March 9, 1901
conse;
that in the event of the plaintiff taking the part of Mr. Price's premises and said premises upon lease from the defendant some expendituro in doing for two years from the said 1st July last quence it was agreed between the plaintifi he (the defendant) wou'd at his own ex- and his landlord that the original rent pense colour-wash the said premises, but of $209 free of taxes should be increased to would not paint or repair them. The plaintiff $227.50 free of taxes. That lease of No. 12 waS was then in the occupation of the premises as to have expired in the ordinary course on the tenant of the defendant under a lease which 30th June, 1900. About the middle of January, expired on the 30th June last, and was bound 1900, the plaintiff heard from his godown keeper. by his said lease to keep the interior thereof that the godown at No. 10, Queen's Road Con- painted and repaired, and to deliver up the tral, situate conveniently near to the plaintiff's same at the end of his time in a good, clean, premises, being only divided from them by an tenantable and proper state of repair and amend-alley-way some 10 feet wide, was to let. The ment.
plaintiff went over to see it and proposed to 3. In further reply to the said paragraph the defendant's agent that a lease should be the defendant says that in the mouth granted to him for it for a period of five of April last the plaintiff was negotiating with years from the first July, 1901, and that the the defendant for a lease of the said premises defendant should also grant him a new lease of at No. 12, Queen's Road Con.ral, but the said his office premises at No. 12 for a period of five negotiations fell through, and no agreement was years from the same date. The plaintiff in fact ever entered into by the plaintiff with the wanted a new lease of his office premises at defendant in respect of the said premises, be. No. 12 and a lease of the godown at No. 10 for cause the defendant refused to let the said pre-a period of five years from the first July, 1900. mises to the plaintiff for a longer period than The jury would hear when the evidence came two years from the 1st July, 1900, and the to be given that the plaintiff gave the defend- plaintiff refused to accept a lease for any shorter ant's agent most clearly to understand that the period than three years.
godown at No. 10 would be of no use whatever
5. In further reply to the said paragraph 4 of the petition, the defendant says that if the plaintiff has expended money (which the defend- ant does not admit) upon the colour-washing and painting of the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and in altering and enlarging his the plaintiff's office therein, and in extend 5. The defendant wrongfully refuses to speci-ing the electric light therein, it has not been on fically perform the said agreement for a lease. the faith of any agreement between the plain- The plaintiff, therefore, humbly prays:- tiff and defendant, nor has it been with the knowledge or consent of the defendant that such work has been done or money expended.
(1) That the defendant may be ordered by this honourable Court to specifically perform the aforesaid agreement and to grant a lease to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
(2) That the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff his costs of suit.
(3) That the plaintiff may have such further or other relief as to this honourable Court may seem meet.
The defendant's answer is as follows:- 1. The defendant admits the statements in paragraphs' 1 and 2 of the petition to be true.
2. In answer to paragraph 3 of the petition the defendant admits that some time in the month of April last à verbal agreement was con- cluded between the plaintiff and the defendant by which the defendant agreed to let to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to take on lease for 22 months from the 1st May, 1900, at a monthly rental of $50, two-thirds of a godown at No. 10, Queen's Road Central (incorrectly described in the petition as at No. 11, Queen's Road Central), the remaining portion of the said godown being in possession of Messrs. David and Co. The plaintiff has since entered into occupation of the said two-thirds godown and has paid rent therefor. The defendant denies that he in April last or at any time entered into any agreement, verbal or written, with the plaintin to let to the plaintiff for three years from the 1st July, 1900, the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, than in the possession and occupation of the plain tiff as his place of business either alone or together with any other premises. The de- fendant donies that he at any time entered into any agreement to pay the sum of $60, or any
|
4. In reply to paragraph 4 of the petition, to him unless he could obtain a fresh lease of his the defendant denies that there was ever office premises at No. 12. When he made this any agreement for a lease, written or proposal the plaintiff mentioned that the rent verbal, between him and the plaintiff which of No. 12 was $227.50 a month, and suggested included in its terms the said premises that if the lease was renewed the rent should be at No. 12, Queen's Road Central. The ad- the same as before. The defendant's agent mission of the plaintiff into the possession of communicated this proposal to the defendant the godown at No. 10; Queen's laod Central, at Macao, and then reported to the plaintiff and the payment of rent therefor (which the that the defendant could not let him have a defendant admits) were in pursuance of an lease of the office premises at No. 12 for so long agreement confined in its terms wholly and a term as five years, but that he could let him solely to the said godown. The defendant does have a lease for three years, and that he could not know and cannot admit that the plaintiff not let him have the premises at so low a rent has spent money in levelling and cementing the as he had been paying heretofore. The plaintiff said godown. If he has, he has so expended his then asked the defendant's agent how much money without the knowledge or consent of more rent the defendant expected him to the defendant.
pay. The agent communicated with the defend- ant and then reported that An addi- tional $100 month was required. The plaintiff objected to pay such a large addi- tional rent, and notified the defendant's agent of the fact, and the agent again referred to the defendant at Macao, subsequently reporting to the plaintiff that the defendant would grant him a new lease for No. 12 for three years at $300 a month, including taxes. With this offer the plaintiff closed. That arrangement was come to some time in the middle of February 1900, but no writings of any description were in- terchanged between the parties. At that time, because the parties had not been able to come to terms as regarded the renting by the plain. tiff of the godown at No. 10, the defendant notified the plaintiff through his agent that he could get a higher rent for the godown at No. 10 than the plaintiff was willing to pay. Some- whore about this time the agent notified the plaintiff for the first time that the defendant could not let plaintiff have the whole of the godown at No. 10, but that he could have two- thirds of the godown, the other one-third being required by Messrs. David and Company for their business. He should explain to the jury that the defendant's son was at that time com- pradore to Messrs. David and Company. A certain amount of haggling took place with regard to the rest of this godown. The agent asked a higher rent than the plaintiff was disposed to pay. The plaintiff would tell the jury that all through he stuck to the same offer with regard to this two-thirds of the godown at No. 10-that he would pay a rent of $50 a month, inclusive of taxes, and no more. One reason why the plaintiff was unwilling to pay a high rent for the two-thirds of this godown at No. 10 was that inasmuch as only two-thirds of the godown could be let to him he would be com- pelled to continue to keep on a godown in Dud- dell Street which he was renting from Messrs. Belilios and Company. After a certain amount of haggling between the parties in which the agent reduced the rent tos certain extent but would not come down to $50 a month free of taxes which the plaintiff had offered for two-thirds of the godown, it seemed to have occurred to the agent
6. Lastly the defendant cays that negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant for the leasing of the part godown at No. 10, and for leasing of the premises at No. 2, Queen's Road Central, were separato and independent negotiations commencing at different dates de- pending upon different sets of circumstances, and such negotiations would have resulted in two separate agreements, not in one, at different rents and for different terms.
Mr. Pollock, continuing, said those were the pleadings which had been filed, and he would now explain to the jury as shortly as he could the points at issue between the parties, although he was sorry to say that he was afraid he would have to occupy some littl part of their time but he thought he ought to put before them generally the details of the case. The plaintiff was asking the defendant for the specific per- formance of an agreement which was come to between the plaintiff and the defendant, through the defendant's agent, a man called Chau chun, for the lease by the defendant to the plaintiff of godown No. 10, which was erroneously de- scribed in the petition as No 11. Queen's Road Central, from the 1st May, 1900, to the 28th February, 1902, at a monthly rent of fifty dollars, free of taxes and also a lease of the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, for a term of three years from the 1st July, 1930, at a monthly rent of 830), free of taxes. With regard to the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff had been for come- time past carrying on business as a wine merchant at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and he was in possession of these in the month of
|
sum of money, to the plaintiff in respect of any | January, 1900, under a lease which he i that perhaps he could get a better rent than the
work to be done by him upon the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, upon condition that the plaintiff paid any further sums to be expended on such work or upon any condition.
granted to him of these promises for s of plaintiff was willing to pay by putting up three years from the 1st July, 1897, to the 30th notice that two-thirds of his godown was to let. June, 1900, The original rent reserved by that Accordingly the agent had notices both in lease was a rent of 8200 a month free of taxes, | English - 1
The defendant did agree with the plaintiff but the landlord made an addition at the back the all, and Chinese posted at the corner of
in Queen's Road Central. These