One evening after attending the theatre, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well-dressed and attractive woman 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 that woman”.
To their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark and turned around. She said “I’ll take you up on that”.
She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion goodnight, the man accompanied the lady to her apartment where they immediately went to bed.
The following morning he 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 other $25.00, I’ll sue”.
He laughed saying, “I’d like to see you get a judgement on these grounds”.
The next day he was surprised when he received a summons ordering him to court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer said, “She can’t get a judgement on these grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case is presented”.
After the usual preliminaries the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your Honour,my client, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified 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 evacuation of the premises he paid only $25.00. . . only half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not expensive since this was restricted property, and was not available to all and we ask judgement be granted against the defendant to assure payment of balance”.
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed at the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense therefore was somewhat altered from the way he originally planned to present the case. “Your Honour”, he said, “my client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such property from her for a time and derived a degree of pleasure from this transaction. However, my client found a well on the property , around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft and erected a pump, all labour being performed personally by him. We therefore claim the improvement upon the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for rental of said property. We therefore ask that the judgement not be 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 never would have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed his stones, pulled out the shaft and took the pump with him. In doing so , he not only dragged his equipment through the shrubbery, he left the hole larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making it easily accessible to little children. We therefore ask that judgement be granted”.
She won !!
