LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11084, 1 October 1901, Page 2

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Mr H.W. Bishop, S.M., gave judnae* $• yesterrday in the caee of Chasks Par® j." v H. E. Hargreavee, in which £13 Iβ 6diffl £' claimed as damages sustained by reason oft > breach of an agreement to' lease foi.im '*:■'■ years. The defendant had entered into tiif >, house'and premises in March, 1899 joi p, quitted again itt October. The point fit«Bl fi whether the document cpeft ing'-the. tenanttr was an agreement- tojb*s or not.- Hi* Worship, m deliTftrihg jiafe- |~< ment, «aid that ifc had beea *greectti«tS if the document upon which tihe plaioUffit lied was an. agreenaenfe to ken, "(to W* ;;J dant was bound by ifr, but >fc •was pwfteieii tiat it' was merely an agreement fotf *wt iL 4 ; 3t*t»' • tenajiwgrj and therefor on tbe fee. j?.-". of it vaid imdef the. provision* of tb«ffl»' i; perty ' Law Consolidation Acts, exosps * £$ creating a montiilv. tenancy. There, *rtW» X- ; doubt whetaver thai this tos ti» jVview- The document before Mm Mβ* 7' reference to a leane, and plaialr «■• contemplate the execution of a le*j*j"» ' ■was merely an agreement between the Jim s , to let certain premisesi for a, fixed feaMj | t\ro years, ana not being ft deed sew* |" the oast be" held to establish a tenaacjte | minable by one. month* notice on eitbecW -. , The defendant gave this notice, and ttatfw fe 1 could be compelled to ok» ?»**? ', agreememt. Judgment would be for W^ 5, |%- fendant with ootte. ' ' '|' Leave to appeal woe refused. • « |--; Mr Malley appeared for the plainfaff,«es»,y ,Mr Joynt for the defendant. J " i r,~: