LEASE OF A' RESTAURANT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 156, 27 March 1920, Page 7

LEASE OF A' RESTAURANT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS, The hearine of the case of, ConstantinE Musinules v. GrcKorious'Ki*rantste,-.res. tnurant proprietor.-, ot )) 0^ ingt ?% in ? claim for Hie. refund of =1300, ami ~ll|( damages. was concluded in tho Supreme Court Yesterday before His Honour Mi Justice Chapman. -, Mr. 0. C. Mazensarb appeared for tin nlaintilY and Mr. H. P. O'Learv find Mr, B. 1,. "Kd wards for the defendant The statement of claim alleged that bj a contract entered into in Jmio, # 1919» <|o fewlant asrreed to sell to the plain tilt the goodwill of the restaurant ..for 4W»r .tlfll) deposit. and five instalments ot .~>KX monthly. It was further alleged tha defendant undertook to obtain a lease ol the premises for Hie plaintiff. Ih® suU of ,31(10 had .been paid for the lure- o! Hie chattels on the prmuises, W" J n .. a o c , count of the sale. PlfSnt'i ff alleged tha the. representation on-winch lie made til payment was made by tha defendan "fraudulently and' 'either well knowini Hint the same was fake, or recklessl} without carina whether it. was true ; 01 false." In AuKii.«t, 1919. defendant re reived a notice from the landlord to qui (ho premises. and subsequently, cousentec in the Jfasistmto's Court to an ordei beintr made, in favour of _ the londl for possession of the premises,. In till same month defendant undertook to ob tain other premises for. tho plaintiff i consideration of the payment of the uiiii instalment nf'JCIOO. but failed to. do-so and in October, 1919. retook possessioi of tho premises... Plaintiff _ therefon chimed tho return of the .£3OO, with in terest. and ,£IOO, by way. of.damages. Defendant denied the misrepresenta tiou alleaed. or that ho consented to ai order beinu' made in favour of tho land lord, or that he- undertook to prowl' suitable premises for ( tho .plaintiff; tha the landlord, refused to Rrnnt a lease o flit) premises lo the plaintiff. He ah, contended that the plain! if) had not beoi put io anv los>v His Honour said lie could not sco tun snv nefarious arrangement on the pai of- Kuranlze could be-niade out. wr ha< there, been anything unreasonable in th attitude taken up by the landlord In evident against a fraudulent trniw notion, niul there was no evidence alio, tho defendant premised to ofchnn a lea* for plain till'. Plaint,ifl.:s case had wholl; f'lileil on the evidence, and. judgnien would he Riven for tho defendant .will costs on the middle scalo.