(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.)

J. Edmond and Co. v. J. Clements (Ettrick).—Claim, £7 Is lOd, for goods sup plied.—J udgmeut for plaintiffs, with costs (17s).
Executors of Mary A. Christie v. George Schultze.—Judgment summons claim for rent due (£l2 7s 6d). Mr A. Bathgate represented plaintiffs. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount by monthly instalments of 255, with 15s costs. Dalgety and Co. v. J. and J. Watson.— -Claim, £l2 12s sd, on dishonored cheque.— Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs (15s). James Curie v. Robert Smith.—Claim, £lO, as rent for occupation of whole of premises without the consent of plaintiff. Mr J. MacGregor appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Sim for the defendant. —This case was previously heard before Mr Carew, when a nonsuit was given.—John Reid, agent for plaintiff, said that defendant had applied for a lease of the basement only of the premises, situated in Moray place, and it was arranged that he should pay 12a 6d per week rent. On the 26th July, in 1895,~he (Mr Reid) had occasion to visit the premises, when he found that instead of occupying the basement defendant was making use of the whole of the premises. The rent charged to defendant's successor was £1 per week for the whole of the building.—De fendant contended that the agreement was for the occupancy of the whole of the premises.— His Worship, in giving judg ment, said he thought that each person had misunderstood the other, and it would be sufficient if Mr Smith paid the difference between the rent paid by him and that paid by his successor. Judgment was therefore given for £3 15s and costs (£1 19s).
