Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Lok Yuen Yin v. Duus, 1865

[landlord and tenant]

Lok Yuen Yin v. Duus

Consular Court, Shanghai
10 May 1865
Source: The North-China Herald, 13 May 1865

 

H.B.M. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, May 10th, 1865.

Before SIR HARRY S. PARKES, K.C.B., H.B.M. Consul.

R. R. WESTALL, G. COUTTS, Assessors.

LOK-YUEN-YIN versus E. H. DUUS.

The Plaintiff claimed Tls. 750 with interest to date of judgment, for the rent of certain godowns received by defendant for the use of plaintiff.

Mr. EAMES in briefly opening the case for the plaintiff remarked that the question was whether or not a surrender of the premises had been made by Lok-yuen-yin, his client.

Mr. JENKINS said: - I know a Chinaman named Lok-yuen-yin who nonce occupied certain property which I leased from Mr. Sassoon, and the lease of which I subsequently sold to Mr. Duus.  I am aware that there was some dispute between Mr. Duus and this Chinaman about the property.  Some time last year the Chinaman asked me to apply to Mr. Duus, for him, with regard to the premises.  I went to Mr. Duus, and the latter acknowledged to owing Lok-yuen-yin some money and promised to pay it as soon as he could.  Lok-yuen-yin subsequently asked me to to to Mr. Duus, but I never could see him when I went.

To Mr. LAWRANCE: - The originals lease included house, offices and godown.  I re-let the godown only to the Chinaman, up to the expiration of the lease.  I subsequently transferred my whole interest to Mr. Duus, and he was therefore entitled ton receive all the rents.

Mr. EAMES said that when his client vacated the godown temporarily, Mr. Duus made a new lease of it with Mr. Salabelle.  This, he considered, he should not have done.  (The speaker then quoted legal authorities in support of his views.)  The plaintiff therefore claimed the rent of the godown for the five months he did not occupy it.

Mr. LAWRANCE said that it was at Lok-yuen-yin's request that Mr. Duus found a tenant for the godown, and that the former had no right to make this claim.  Mr. Duus had not received the rent from Mr. Salabelle.

LOK-YUEN-YIN said: - I leased a godown from Mr. Jenkins for nearly three years.  It is now in Mr. Duus' charge.  Mr. Jenkins transferred the premises to Mr. Duus and told me I was to pay him the rent. M About the 17th or 18th June, Mr. Duus came to me and said that a friend of his wished to lease the godown.  I first paid rent to Mr. Jenkins for a year, and then to Mr. Duus.  I told Mr. Duus that I would rent the godown to any one who would pay the rent that I paid.  Mr. Duus' friend wanted to take it monthly at 125 Taels per month.  This I would not agree to.  I wanted to rent it for half a year at least.  Mr. Duus told me he would pay me five months' rent on the 1st December, and that I was to give up my godown to him.

TO THE COURT: - I used the godown for a charcoal-shop.  Mr. Duus gave me a letter to Messrs. Lindsay & Co., from whom he said I was to get Tls. 500.  I left the letter and received no answer to it.  I gave the letter to Mr. Antrobus and he having read it laughed, and told me to wait for two or three days.  I went about four times for an answer.  I saw the compradore give the letter to Mr. Antrobus.  Mr. Antrobus gave the letter to a clerk after reading it.

To Mr. LAWRANCE: - I did not ask Mr. Duus to find a tenant for me.

The Court was then adjourned in order that the letter written by Mr. Duus to Lindsay & Co. might be procured if possible.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School