New Britain herald., 1925-07-14
ANDREWS MUST PAY STORE RENT Judge Orders Damages in Case Of
 Store Lease

l' F. Andrews has been ordered 10 pay Camille Gagliardi rent for an Arch street store which has been vacant for several months and faces Inc likelihood of another years pay uenl under the same conditions, as result of a decision handed down ny Judge Howard in superior court n Hartford today.
 The Gagiardi- Andrews case has "2n in the court for several months .nI was one Of the most interesting .I""ulls of the year, Out of 1t grew
 suit for 5000 damages against
 unstable Bernard J. Dougherty and E1EiiGrdi, alleging malicious abuse "t process, which suit has since been withdrawn, Andrews claimed malice M thu action rather than a desire 70 recover what was justly duo the plaintiff and he caused the constable 10 he cite1 as q principal in the suit
 Attorneys Edward A. Mag and $. Gerard Casale represented Gagli- ardi and the law firm of Nair < Nalr acted as counsel for Andrews Judge Towards ruling, in part, fol- lows:
 Plaintiff leased a store to defend ant, for the term of one year begin ming June Is, 1923, for thirty dollars per month, with the privilege on the part of l.. D. Andrews of continuing the lease for two additional years for the sum of $35 per month.' The lease, exhibit A, lacks one witness, lacks seal and an acknowledg- ment, Before the year was up de- fendant moved from the store leav- ing one Barker in possession who paid the rent to plaintiff by checks issued by defendant. Defendant proved a course of business by which Barker, who had no checking &C., count, purchased checks of defend- ant with which to pay his bills. Plaintiff has not proved to have known this custom. Barker remain cd in possession one month over the year. paying for that month at the $35 rate, and then vacated. Plain tiff did not accept Barker as tenant, but, on the contrary, told defend- ant he would hold defendant for the rent. Barker was, therefore, a sub tenant, his possession was that of the defendant, and the defendant re- maned liable under the lease.
 The privilege of an additional two years tenancy did not require an additional instrument to give 1t t-1s, t1 .t,t, +N nf ftSult 4 (. satisfied by it.
 'If the lease be considered as one for a year. with a noptional contract for a further period, it does not fall within section 509T of the general statutes and the lack of acknoWl- .lgment. one witness and seal is of no importance. If it be considered lease for three years subject to lcfnasanco at the end of one year ot the will of the defendant, the lease is still good as between the parties thereto, and equally good as against plaintiff or defendant.
 "%ince the lease is for definite lcrm 1t. does not fall within section 5Ua9, general statutes.
 "No notice of intention to exercise his option was given by the dcfend- %l,t While such notice is necessary in lho case of ;L covenant 10 renew if is uot necessary in the case of an agreement to extend. The mere hold ing over i6 sufficient, especially when coupled with payment and accept aucc of rent in accordance with the provisions of the privilege contained in the lease. The payment of rent at the advanced rate by the sub-tenant to the plaintiff, being equivalent to the payment thereof by the defend- ant 10 the plaintiff, is conclusive Of the exercise by the defendant of his right 10 extend tho lease.
 ~"The plaintiff has rented the store in questoin, since the removal of the defendants sub-agent, receiving six " dollars therefor. That amount Is therefore deducted from the dam- ages. Damages can only be awarded the plaintiff, on the pleadings, until the date of trial.
 "Judgment may be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars and his costs