& 20 THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. [3 February, 1955. 9. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that if rent was in arrears for twenty one days and that if he should make any assignment or benefit of his creditors or entered into any agreement or make any arrange- ment with his creditors for the liquidation of his debts by composition or otherwise then it would be lawful for the defendant to enter and determine the tenancy forthwith. 10. The defendant never at any time or at all refused to deliver the goods and chattels of the plaintiff. ll. By letter dated 31st July, 1954, delivered to the plaintift’s Solicitor on 3rd August, 1954, the defendant expressed his willingness to determine the tenancy, called attention to indebtedness to him in the sum of $431.06 and offered to deliver the chattels on payment of this debt. 12. The plaintiff has not paid the said indebtedness or made any demands in respect of the said chattels. 13. The defendant says that the item claimed in (7) of paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim and its accessories is a landlord fixture and as such the property of the defendant. Counterclaim of Defendant Leslie Alfred Thompson. 14. The defendant Counterclaims herein for: (1) $120.00 arrears of rent due under the said tenancy as at 15th September, 1954. (2) Mesne profits. (3) $200.00 being the estimated cost of leaving the said premises in tenantable repair. (4) $171.06 being due to the defendant by the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered up until 26th June, 1954. Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. 1. The plaintiff joins issue with the defendant on his defence herein. 2. As to the Counterclaim the plaintiff:— (a) Denies owing $120.00 arrears of rent or any other sum. (6) Denies owing mesne profits. (c) Says that the plaintiff has improved the premises considerably and that he offered to repaint any names or lettering printed on the said premises and to replaster any portions of the walls or floor. The plaintiff says that $200 is excessive for this purpose. (d) Admits owing $171.06 and has always admitted this debt but says that the refusal of the defendant to release his goods has prevented him from settling same. The evidence led at the trial shows that it was only the ground floor of No. 37 St. Mary’s Street that was rented to the plaintiff and that the rental was, as stated by the defendant, $60a month, payable in advance. Even before the plaintiff entered into possession on 15th February, 1954, negotiations for a five-year leuse between the defendant of the one part and the plaintiff and Frank Benevides of the other, were commenced. A draft lease was prepared and its terms were discussed, but no lease was ever executed as the parties were never ad idem on certain essentials. The only tenancy that ever existed between the plaintiff and the defendant was a monthly one, wholly independent of and in no way affected by the terms and conditions contained in the draft lease. Previous to the plaintiff’s occupation, the entire ground floor of the building comprised one large room, with shelves only; from time to time it was rented to travelling agents for displaying their goods. On entering into possession the plaintiff, with the defendant’s consent, effected various minor repairs, con- structed partitions, installed a bath, lavatory and wash basin, and altogether spent about $930 in making one section of the building fit for living purposes and the remainder suitable for a Modern Meats business which he and Benevides were about to establish. Among the things installed were the articles which now form the subject- matter of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff has valued them, excluding the meat grinder about which no evidence was given, at $6705; [ see no reason for rejecting his valuation. Before tha business commence. operations Benevides left the Island and, for reasons unconnected with this case, the plaintiff was arrested and extradited. The arrest was effected on 3rd July, 1954, the plaintiff thereafter remaining in police custody until his removal from the Island in October. Upon lis arrest the plaintiff gave John Rowan Henry, his Solicitor, the keys to the St. Mary’s Street prem- ises, with certain instructions. On 4th July the plaintiff further gave Mr. Henry a document authorising him to deliver some of the articles in the premises to certain named persons. After carrying out these instructions on 4th July Mr. Henry, that same day, handed over the keys to Mr. C. E. Francis, the defendant’s Solicitor, it having been agreed that it would iu the circumstances be better for the latter, as solicitor for the landlord, to hold the keys. All the articles listed in the fourth paragraph of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, with the exception of the meat grinder, were then in the premises. On 6th July, 1954, the plaintiff executed an authorisation to one Mr. Bill Wyre and Mr. Henry in the following terms: ‘to liquidate any and all equipment | owned by me and kept at 37 St. Mary’ s Street, the proceeds of which shall be used for the payment of my debts.” In a footnote to the document the plaintiff appended a list of his debts, which included the sum of $300, being five months rent due to the defendant from 15th February to 15th July, 1954. Disputes have arisen as to what took place subsequent to the execution of this document. I am satisfied that the account given by the plaintiff and Mr. Henry is correct, and that the defendant and his solicitor repeatedly refused to give Mr. Henry the keys of the premises to enable removal of the plaintiff’s belongings—that, notwith- standing Mr. Henry’s undertaking that a bill for $171.06 for shop goods sold and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff would also be settled from the proceeds of the sale of the plaintiff’s property. Towards the end of July the defendant and his solicitor visited the plaintiff at H.M. Prison. The defendant expressed willingness to allow the plaintiff to continue the tenancy if the latter regained his liberty but refused to rent to anyone else or to permit the plaintiff to sublet or employ anyone to run the business.