Arizona republican., 1909-06-23
4 COMPLICATED SUIT
 FOR REPAYMENT OF RENT
LITIGATION WHICH HAD ITS oRI-
 GIN IN FIRE.
The Story of a Store Front in the
 Rear.

A complicated civil suit was tried before Justice Johnstone yesterday and it would have been still more compli- cated if a part of it had not been dis missed. A. H. Reeves one of the pro prietors of the Coliseum and formerly proprietor of the Electric theater in the Winters building brought suit against the owner E. H. Winters for the recovery of $200 the amount of rent paid for the months of June, July. August and September of this year.
 A lease for the room was renewed at the beginning of the year. the rent to be paid in advance and which was paid at the beginning of the year. This pc culiar arrangement was doubtless made to secure to Mir. Winters his rent for what might be supposed to be dull months in the show business.
 One night in February a fire broke out in the theater which made the theater uninhabitable for show pur- poses and MT. Reeves moved else where, at length. entering into partner ship with MT. Wood in the Coliseum,
 In the meantime. MT. Winters re paired the damages inflicted by the and rented the room to the Singer Sewing Machine company which has occupied it since the first of the month Mir. Reeves demanded repay ment of the rent on the ground that the fire had terminated the lease and that Mir Winters was already receiv- ing rent from the Singer Sewing Ma chine company.
 Mir Winters put in a counter com plaint asking the court to award him damages in the sum of $625 for the destruction of the front of the building by the fire Here the complications began to come in. The statement that the front of the building was in the rear at the time of the fire is not as paradoxical as it might seem at first glance. and without explanation. The front was not suited to the purposes of a picture show and Mir Reeves had had another put in. The original front was stored in the back part of the building and was burned with every thing else in it that February night when it looked for a time as if the whole block would go.
 Objection was made by the defense to this cross complaint on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court which is limited in adjudica tion, holding that the plaintiff might as easily begin. an action in a justices court for the recovery of as large a sum as was asked for in the cross complaint.
 ThereupOn the cross complaint was amended bringing the amount prayed for to $500 but elsewhere there was mentioned another sum the plaintiff owed the defendant of $125 so that the complaint was open to the same ob- jectiOn as before. On the motion of the defense this complaint was dismissed and the trial proceeded on the plain tiffs complaint alone.
 NIT. Reeves had brought several witnesses to testify in the matter of the cross complaint but they were not called It was expected to prove by them that the front had been stored in the building at the instance of MT. Winters who had declared that he would hold the plaintiff responsible for it if it were stored in regular ware house. It was also expected to be proved that in the adjustment of the insurance, MT. Winters had received s200 for the front which had been put in by MT. Reeves. Justice Johnstone will announce a decision today.