Showing posts with label prostitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prostitution. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
A Precedent in the Law
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 to spend the night with that woman”. To their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, and turning around said “I’ll take you up on that”. She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the lady to her apartment where they immediately went to bed.
The following morning, the man presented her with $25 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money stating “If you don’t give me the other $25, 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 a defendant in a law suit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained to him 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”.
After the usual preliminaries, the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your honour, my client, this lady here, is an owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a produce growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified period of time, for the sum of $50. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon vacating the premises, he paid only $25--one half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive since it is restricted property, and we ask that judgement be granted against the defendant”.
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed and amused at the way his opponent had presented the case. His defence, therefore, was somewhat altered from the way originally planned to present it. “Your honour” he said, “My client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, and 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 own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump. All labour being performed by him, we claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of the said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted”.
The young lady’s lawyer came back thusly: “Your honour, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. But, 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 his 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”.
She got it.
The following morning, the man presented her with $25 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money stating “If you don’t give me the other $25, 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 a defendant in a law suit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained to him 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”.
After the usual preliminaries, the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your honour, my client, this lady here, is an owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a produce growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified period of time, for the sum of $50. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon vacating the premises, he paid only $25--one half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive since it is restricted property, and we ask that judgement be granted against the defendant”.
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed and amused at the way his opponent had presented the case. His defence, therefore, was somewhat altered from the way originally planned to present it. “Your honour” he said, “My client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, and 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 own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump. All labour being performed by him, we claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of the said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted”.
The young lady’s lawyer came back thusly: “Your honour, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. But, 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 his 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”.
She got it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)