142

SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

Carlos Wing Sang sold out his business to the defendant, Wing Sang, and that thereafter the said defendant, Wing Sang, made a verbal agreement of lease with the plaintiff for the occupancy by him, the. said defendant, of said premises. The defendant contended that, according to the terms of said verbal contract, it was agreed by and between him and the plaintiff that he should buy the old shelves and other fixtures from Carlos Wing Sang and put in new ones. himself, and that if, at any time, the defendant should voluntarily leave the premises, the show case and all the fixtures should belong to, the- plaintiff but if the plaintiff gave him, the defendant, notice to leave, then the fixtures, etc., should belong to the said Wing Sang, the defendant. This is substantially the verbatim testimony of the defendant himself in this regard, and thi's was corroborated by the testimony of one Chong See Fat, who testified that he acted as Spanish interpreter between the plaintiff and the defendant in the making of the verbal contract in question. There was testimony tending to show that the defendant, Wing Sang, had been the tenant of the plaintiff in question since 1903, and that he was the real party in interest in the contract of June 1, 1907, and that he was in fact the tenant throughout under the said written contract of June 1, 1907, but there was a decided conflict of evidence in this regard; so that at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant asked the court to rule on the admission of the written contract of June 1, 1907, in evidence, and the court so ruled, denying said instrument. Thereupon the plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint by alleging an oral contract of lease with the defendant, which he did. The question therefore presented for the decision of the court under the amended complaint was as to the terms of the said verbal contract of lease with the defendant. It may be stated that the plaintiff having elected to file an amended complaint, pursuant to the ruling of the court, 'Instead of resting upon his claim that there was a written contract of lease between the plaintiff and defendant, can not now be beard to complain of the action of the court in excluding the alleged written con-tract from the evidence. It must also follow that the finding of the court as to the terms of the oral contract of lease between the plaintiff and defendant must be considered conclusive here for certainly in the conflict of evidence which the record disclosed it can not be said that the finding of the court was manifestly against, the weight of the evidence. On the contrary, it would seem to us to be fairly sustained by all the
nc r1;cAncx1A hxr tbp rpenrd in AP rn qp