Law as it should be
One evening after attending the theatre, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive lady walking just ahead of them. One of the men turned to the other and remarked, “I’d give $50.00 to spend the night with this woman.” To their surprise the young lady overheard the remark and turning around she said, “I’ll take you up on that.” She had a pleasant voice and a neat appearance, so, after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the lady to her apartment, where they immediately went to her apartment where they immediately went to bed.
The following morning the man presented her with $25.00. As he prepared to leave she demanded the rest of the money stating “If you don’t give me the money I’ll sue you for it.” He laughed saying “I’d like to see you get it on these grounds.”
The next day he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as defendant in a law suit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer said: “She can’t possibly get a judgement against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented.”
In court after the usual preliminaries, the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your Honour, my client, this lady here, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specific length of time for the sum of $50.00. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises he paid only $25.00 which is only half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgement to be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance.”
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed and amused at the way the opponent had presented the case. His defense, therefore, was somewhat altered from the way he originally planned to present it. “Your Honour, my client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such property for a time and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property, around which he placed his stones, sunk a shaft and erected a pump, all labour being performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property adequately compensated for rental of said property. We therefore, ask judgement be not granted.”
The young lady’s lawyer come back was this: “Your Honour: My client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property and that he did make improvements such as my opponent has described. However, had the defendant not known the well existed, he would never have rented the property, also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making it easily accessible to little children. We therefore, ask that judgement be granted.”
The judge’s decision was that the defendant should either pay the plaintiff the $25.00 balance, or, failing that, that the defendant should detach the aforementioned equipment and present it to plaintiff for damages.
The man hurriedly wrote out a check for $25.00 to the young lady.
This page was last updated August 1, 2001.