Huddersfield Chronicle (04/Apr/1891) - Holmfirth County Court: The Law as to Landlord and Tenant
HOLMFIRTH COUNTY COURT.
The Law as to Landlord and Tenant.
Bailey v. Bamforth.
In this action, Joseph Bamforth, painter, Holmfirth, was sued by Aner Bailey, property owner, Holmfirth, for £10, one quarter's rent of premises occupied by the defendant. Mr. Geo. Hy. Sykes (S. S. Booth and Sykes) represented plaintiff, and Mr. Meller defended. The plaintiff's case, as shown by Mr. Sykes and the evidence for the plaintiff, was that Mr. Bamforth was accepted by Mr. Bailey as tenant of two shops at Upperbridge, by verbal agreement some 20 years ago, the rental then being £25 a year, the rent to be paid quarterly. Since then the defendant had sub let one of the shops to Misses Booth, and later on the defendant's rent was raised to £30 — £7 10s. per quarter. In consequence of defendant's son doing some damage to the property, notice was given to quit by the plaintiff in November 1889, but that notice was not acted upon. In the following May a written notice was sent Mr. Bamforth, the tenancy to expire on the 3rd November, and as an alternative £40 a year would be charged. At the expiration of that time, defendant, whilst having removed from his portion of the property, had failed to remove his under tenants, and the present action was brought for the quarter's rent following. The Deputy Judge held that in his notice plaintiff could not raise the rent as he had done. He could not regard them as tenants with one hand and not with the other. Mr. Sykes then amended the claim to £7 10s., a quarter's rent at £30 per year. The plaintiff, when in the box, swore positively that he had never regarded or accepted the Misses Booth as his tenants. Mr. Meller said the defence was that as soon as his client received his notice to quit he noticed his under-tenants, and the latter would have left the premises if the plaintiff had not himself accepted them as tenants for the shop they occupied. He had Mr. Arthur Booth in court, who would tell them of an interview he had with the plaintiff when the latter agreed that the Misses Booth should remain in the tenancy of their shop. His client, under these circumstances, could not evict the Misses Booth, but duly delivered up possession of his part of the premises at the proper time, when, for some reason or other not stated, plaintiff refused the rent, whereupon Mr. Bamforth dropped it in his pocket. Mr. Bamforth corroborated this statement in evidence, and Mr. Arthur Booth gave evidence as to plaintiff agreeing to take on Miss Booth as a tenant. Miss Booth also stated that plaintiff had been to look round the shop, and it was understood that she was to remain in possession. His Honour said he would believe the evidence of the plaintiff, who told them that he had refused to take Miss Booth as a tenant, and Mr. Booth must be mistaken as to what he understood plaintiff to say in his interview with him. Verdict for plaintiff, with full costs. Mr. Meller asked for execution to be stayed until a new trial. The Deputy-Judge agreed, but Mr. Meller would have to adduce fresh evidence.