SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3637, 19 October 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Civil sitting. i j,.” Monday, October' 19. v , (Before his Hopnr Mr Justin Chapman and a Special Jury.) Scott v. Eeodrick and Another —This was an hy pkiKiff to cause it to be deweed, that defendants grant him a seven years’ loaaa of certain premium —Mr M 'c.aasey and Mr KeEHc Appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Smith and for defendants. —For plaintiff it was djfc fprth that the late Mr Richard Sew(*rd Cmlfijell was owner and landlord <jf the livery stable extending from .High Street io .teteeert, and that they had been dgt ope Daniel (Williams. 1n’1869 Hemy jyJott, plaintiff, purchased the interest o| the latter in the premises cor LI.OOO, occupying ; them .at „t|he same rent (L2OB ! pfeT annum) as Williams paid, and Cantrell accepting him as a tenant. No lease or agreeinent was entered int*> between the parties; but the rent was paid monthly. / Inlß7l, plaintiff as lied Cantrell to erect some additions to the buildings, which thedatto • agreed to do, but afterwards declined, Piaindff then offered to put them up at his own expense,' which Ootutiell closed with, promising to grant a live or seven years’ lease in oqnsidqratiou thereof. On the faith of this promise plaintiff made the improvements,,, Can ' trell endorsing bills of,exchange drawn on plaintiff,-nil of which were duly met by the latter. ’ During the currency of the last of these, however. Cantrell was taken ill, upon which plaintiff went to his house in order to get the lease granted. Gahtrell was so ill that no One was allowed to eee him, arid plaintiff therefore intimated to Mrs Cantrell the object he had. A few days after this (in \uiMiat, 1872) Cantrell died, before any or agreement with plaintiff could be exfeouted. On July 18, 1873 defendants, i«xfe cutors under the will of Cantrell, served plaintiff with a notice to quit the premises, _stating that he was merely, a weekly tenant and refusing to grant, him a lease. Plaintiff, thinking he is entitled to a five or seven years’ lea- e, now required that defendants be ordered to grant him such, and that they be restrained from ejecting him., Mr Macasrey briefly opened the case, saying the questions to be decided by the jury were whether they would be satisfied'by the evidence which would be given that a verbal agreement had l» n entered into between Cantrell and plaintiff ; and whether 'the improvements carried olit were riiade by plaintiff in pursuance and part performance of such agreement. ■: i John Maciean, cattle dalesman, gave evidence to the effect that he had in 1871 applied to the late Mr Cantrell for a lease of the stqblrs for himself, but the former bad signified that it could not be done, las a lease was in existence between hirnSelf. arid Scott Plaintiff stated the facts and circumstances attending his holding Of the premises, as above, stated. From his evidence, it appeared’'that when he asked Mr Cantrell to erect the [improvements, the latter replied that another person had’offered’'him "LI per week more for the place Elian plaintiff was paying, and therefore he did not see why he should-go tb any expense j but that if plaintiff chose to make'the Improvements, a five or seven years’ lease (at plaintiff’s option) should be given him. [Left sitting.]