The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-05-20
MUST PAY RENT.
Judgment Against sherman. Clay &
Co. for x:S2O.S6.

Go. for x3x0.s6.
In Judge Benson's court yesterday the
suit which had been pending for some
time between A. V. friedrich. plaintiff.
and Sherman, Clay & Co.. defendants,
came 70 an end by a verdict for the
plaintiff in the sum of $S26ss. which
covers the rental Of the music store oc-
cupied by the defendant company from the
LIST OF April to date. The suit was one
brought for unlawful retainer and has been
hanging fire for some time The music
company rented portion OF the store
room Nc. lis Second avenue from Fred
rick. who was renting from Hinckley,
the owner Of the block. Sherman, Clay
e. Co made an agreement with friedrich
whereby they obtained a lease, good until
the first of the present year. carrying with
1t rental at the rate of $50 per month,
the lease TO be subject 20 renewal upon
date OF expiration Friedrich was paying
Hinckiey somewhat less than $50 rent
for the store room. Sherman. Clay & Co.
at the expiration OF the lease, according
10 their testimony in court. made an oral
contract with Friedrich whereby they were
to continue as his tenants at the same rate
Of rent and thar In the event of Fredrick's
rent being raised they were to pay one
half of the difference per month. In court
they tried to introduce evidence in SUD-
sanitation of this contract, but were
restrained from doing so on a point Of
technicaiity.
When the Klondike boom struck Seattle
Fredrick's rent was raised. Sherman,
Clay & Co say they came promptly to
the front with an offer to pay the one
half OF the increase, as by agreement.
But Friedrich, they claim, had In the
meantime been offered an even larger
rent by other persons DESTROYS Of occupy
ing the store. among them being the late
iy defunct Seattle Journal management,
and he then served notice on his musical
tenants TO quit the premises. They. how
ever. had not the least mind TO be ousted.
They say they offered their sub-landiord
500 per month rent, and called forcibly
to his attention the terms of the oral
contract; but that he not only refused the
proffered terms, but renewed his demand
that they 60 and stand not upon the
order OF their going. but go at once. But
they stood their ground.
The next step in the proceedings was a
suit by Fredrick against Sherman. Clay
& Co. for unlawful retainer, the result
OF which was made known in a former
paragraph. The defendant company say
they are very well pleased with the finding
Of the Jury against them. inasmuch az the
Sl2S 81 awarded Fredr.ck simply equals
the rent they proposed to pay from the
lst Of April to date namely 500 per month.
III - NOT h5fo"H hoMtfff- NHebhsf Ut NOT
tho Plaintiff. acting OF the strength OF
Judge Benson's decision that the defendant
company erred i'm not renewing their lease
In writing at the first of the wear, will
ask the court for writ OF eviction.
But while they are in doubt on that
point Sherman, Clay & Co say they
positively will refuse 10 he evicted. They
will watch closely every movement OF the
enemy. and II he should procure a wri;
OF custer they hope 70 check the move
with an order OF restraint.