New Britain herald., 1924-04-26
BIBLE CLASS DELEGATES TO
 EASTERN CONVENTION MEET
 TO FORM BIC ORGANIZATION
FINDS LEASE BROKEN
 BY CLOTHING COMPANY
Justice Roche Rules for Plaintiff Against Connors-
 HallOran, Inc.

Judgment for the plaintiff was ren dered today by Justice Henry F Roche in the case of Eliza Hadley vs
 Connors- Halloran Co.,, ct al., 8 sui 1 brought to recover possession of tht
 store at 215 Main street on tho
 grounds that the company had violat
 ed the terms of its lease. The case
 was heard in city court a month age
 with Justice Roche on the bench and attracted widespread interest.
 In his memorandum of decision
 Justice Roche says:
 This case alleges three breaches of
 conditions for which the landlord
 seeks possession of leased premises. The most important breach is the fail
 ure to pay the rent due November l,
 1928 on or before November Is, as
 provided for in the lease. This rent
 was not paid until November S0th,
 after notice to quit had been given
 and under a receipt which stated that
 it was not received as rent under the lease, but only for use and occupancy of the leased premises, but should in
 no way affect forfeiture as claimed. Such a receipt was held to preserve all the rights of the parties with the respect to the pending litigation in the case of Casner ys. Resnik, s5 Conn. 2S2. The defendants, the Con- nors- -Halloran Clothing company, in- corporated, admitted non-payment of rent vii sn the time limited in the lease but claimed that the plaintiff was stopped from setting up the for feiture because of the acceptance by her of a series of late payments Of rent dated at least from December, 1922. The case relied on for this contention is the Fort Orange Bar bering company vs. the New Haven Hotel company, ec Conn. li&. This case holds as follows:
 '"The rule that by failing to declare a forfeiture Of lease when the land lord has the right to do so, he there by valves the forfeiture, rests upon the ground Of estoppel. and is applie- able only fin cases--unlike the present in which the lessee has incurred large expenditures or made valuable improvements in reliance that the landlord will continue of the same mind and will not assert his technical right to insist upon a forfeiture.
 "The expenditures made by the lessee in the present case were s2,6b0 In 1921, when the lease was entered into. and s3g9 during July, 1923. The expenditures made at the time the lease was entered into cannot be -,. Al. a..... hna. v,aIa tp raifaurp that lessor would continue to accept late payments and would not assert her right 10 insist on forfeiture. AS To the s3ee payment the conditions that the rent was $500 per month and that inc store was used for business purposes and part was paid Tor light ing and for fixtures cannot be held 10 be an unreasonably large sum and ioes not appear to come within the .uic. In fact the landlord apparently lid not assent to the late payments md never encouraged the tenant 10 |. make them as shown by the letter or Nav end, and it is testiaed that Mr. adwell, agent for the lessor. called !, ,be store several times and remon- ,,,sted against the late payment of .ent, and for these reasons tne .uus nent must be for the plaintih 70 re- over possession Of the store. lt ,ot necessary 10 pass on the oreach !, April I. 1923. and the alleged as ,ienment of the lease 10 Herman soldstein. ,-,,.u
 "There is a line Of cases holding hat a landlord having the right to ,eclare A forfeiture and who does not . leciare it when he is entitled to do so . yaiyes the right Of forfeiture. These . .ases are fuliy discussed in case ,ote to o'Connor vs. Zimmerman 24 :, R. \. (S. sJ ioss The Law in { Is the one set forth in the fort orange case, rather than more iberal rule" |