Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Royce v. Bennett, 1870

[ejectment]

Royce v. Bennett

Supreme Court of China and Japan
25 February 1870
Source: The North-China Herald, 1 March 1870

 

H.B.M. SUPREME COURT

Before Chas. W. GOODWIN, Esq.

Shanghai, February 25th, 1870.

R. G. JOYCE v. P. H. BENNETT.

Action of Ejectment.

Mr. Eames, Attorney for Plaintiff.  Defendant by a letter from Mr. Joyce, of which this is a copy (produced) had been allowed to enter the premises for one year by Mr. Joyce, on the consideration, that he would aid Mr. Eames in collecting rents and looking after the general well being of the property.  Mr. Benett had entered premises on these conditions, and subsequently, without any authority from me, entered into a stipulation to lease, not only his own, but some other parts of Mr. Joyce's property to Frank Deslandes, for a term of five years.  The premises were leased to Teige Nolting & Co. by Mr. Joyce; but the action of Mr. Bennett was an obstruction to carrying it out.  He therefore prayed that Defendant be required to give up possession at once.

Defendant replied, that all Mr. Eames had stated was false; that he had an interest in the property as well as Mr. Joyce; in fact, that Mr. Joyce was interested in it to a very small extent, and that Mr. Eames had offered him L. 50 to leave the place.  He however acknowledged having entered the premises under Mr. Joyce's letter and having signed a lease (produced) though not for himself, but for other parties.

His Lordship considered that Defendant had acted in fraud of the tenancy which he held.  He had entered the premises on the conditions specified in the letter and, without further authority, had acted in a way directly opposed to them.  He had therefore forfeited his right remain on the premises.  Plaintiff was entitled to enter and take possession.

Mr. Bennet said, he was willing to give up the houses so far as he himself was concerned, but he had already leased some of them to other parties; what was to become of them?

His Lordship said that they had no more right to remain where they are, than he had to grant leases to them in the first instance.  This was a matter for Mr. Eames to deal with. [See also US v Deslandes, North-China Herald, 1 March 1870.]

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