The defendant said after he received plaintiffs lettar he found that altomtlono be would require would largely ejoeed the oast he espected | thathe told platntlfl of tbti, and that ha would not pay a higher rent than £5 a week, ond that he would take the shop for a term of three years at that rate, and Iw eaya that plaintiff, utter some objection to the rent, accepted, In {he f ace of this direct contradiction, I cannot eay I am satisfied Upon bin 'svideaas rSo&s bs te which version is coy*

Aould h« b^ e was no agreement '^i the rent J™ be m ote thaa £5 a week reeeive t c°a"m^ On ■ JJ£ m the fact that Plaintlff n<*S erirtaffiET s'*"l after the tenancy had Mr B?J?h -? lythree veatß- ahe explanation by out for nelri^f Why m°nthly accounts wew sent same i™ I 7 tw-° years at £5 a week, he at the stmolv b^m Wl, Bg he was entitled to JES 10s, to ?ebutTh« ? leDter w" mislaid, is too weak l^^&S^ion^in,^. whichever if ™ 'f™" 16 Whioh Period- but I^dpon ot 3ME s\r£*££ agreement which can be heia apSble to a astsaawssss-Ssssß: of a partition and a door for which another had been substitutedl and the repair of a cracked plate glass window. Mr Braithwaite said in his letter ohhe Ist March: *I shall require the present partitions or fixtures or any alterations made by you restored as they are now.' Mr Laurenson saya he made no ?^ fii"£ Prom£se in. the matter, but he admitted that, before he gave up possession, he asked Mr Braitnwaite if he required the partition to be restored. I think this shows an admission of liability, and applies to the door as well as the partition; but Mr Braithwaite's reply that he did not wish the partition put up again absolves Mr laurenson from the liability to re-erect that partition; bub I think plaintiff has a clear right to the value of the material, £3. As to the door, I think it only just to consider the effect ot the other alterations as a whole. 