The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-06
RVS OF THE COURTS.
|ltsRble Over an Anti-Salo0n
Clause in a Lease.
MT TO COLLECT INSURANCE.
- CITY Receivers Pessoosien 81 eho
soskess street slip-Mrs. YsslsR
70 Have Separate Trial.

- :. Fletehers suit against Emma Nc
Gpoha1 70 recover $4,000 damages for with
k11lse possession OF the lower part Of build
~ q TIE corner Of Main street aud Railroad
usus was on trial before jury In Judge o.
nrss court yesterday. The case IL IN intersst-
- oss. and IL fairly bristling with delicate law
ninu il also has something of history, -
- q the thru time it hes come up for trial
Il lo6s Fletcher leased the building from Mrs.
oeclansbau. subject 70 . lease TO the latter from
r Columbia d Puget sound Railway Company.
= shis lease were clauses prohibiting any ga
~ bsing kept In the building and ioroiddfng
6sy snb-ietting Al the time OF the lease from
IN. AcClsnahan 20 Fletcher, however, the
Dssf part of the building was used oy
lambert d Co. 40 . saloon. aud she occupied
- upper story a. . lodging house. Fletcher
- 70 pay $50 q month for the whole ouilo-
- He obtained possession OF the upper past
She building. bus Gnmterr refused TO yield
his saloon, claiming that Mrs. Mechanism
granted him . verbal renewal for year
&oe to the execution OF tho lease 10 Fletcher.
(1etchsr then brought suit against McCaana-
"a asserting that without . saloon the whole
|neperty would be useless 70 him. Tho case
- tried before Judge Osborn and resulted In .
tesdics for the plaintiff for ts.0N new
~ was granted. however. upon exceptions
= he evidence, and when the case came up be-
~ Judge Humss James Hamilton Lewis, ~
{oneney for the defendant. raised the question
Nj no recovery could he had under the CON-
alaint, q no damages were shown that could b
ilsAuirsay measured by the jury. 4 ney depended
vpon possible profits, and were hence too uncsr.
ITO. nor-suit was accordingly granted, but
10 pistatid obtained leave to amend the com.
|plAins which he did, and nov brings this &C.
. ~. He seeks 10 recover. first because Gum.
IN 4 Ca reiussd to surrender possession Of tho
aIoon and NrA AcClanahsn, his lessor, would
| ~ take steps to have them busted; secondly,
Because he had gone 70 great expense In fitting
p and improving the lodging HOUSE, hut that
. ~ premises were valueless because he could
| ~ get the sa:oon.
On the trial yesterday afternoon. after the case
~ bssn opened By Z. C. Hughes and the nrst
witness had been put upon the stand, James
uaniiton Lewis. for the defendant, again in-
t1poeod motion for q non-suit and judgment
| y the defendant, on the ground that under the
! hrs Of the state the making Of . lease carried
. I'D Il no contract or warranty on the part Of
- lessor 70 put the lessee in posses.
.osn. Since Mra Mechanism had sub
|hosd eli her interest he oontended
hst II vas FIstcher's duty 70 maintain IN &C
~ against Gumbsrt to recover possession and
q The estate In the property that McCisnahsn
- had been transferred 70 him. and he only
ND maintain such IN action. He also urged
. 81 The only damages Fletcher could recover, II
~. vss the amount agreed upon - rent, but
/ 1T had never been paid. For the plaintiff IL
~ uIgsd that Fletcher he'd right 70 damages
- The worth OF his lease, that 10. for the full
naskst valus Of the lease for the period Of ave
ysan II addition 10 such damages - he had
suffered In his business By reason Of failure to
eheAin posssssion Of the saloon.
he arguments occupied the whole afternoon.
~ numerous authorities were cited on both
49, Of the question. Judge Osborn stated
oAat Two Of tho questions were novelties. but
nat ho would render his decision this morning