Providence Baptist Ass'n v. Los Angeles Hompa Honowanji Buddhist Temple

SHINN, Acting P.J. In this action for damages for forcible entry and detainer, the jury returned a verdict of $5,000 in favor of plaintiff “L. B. Brown, on behalf of the members of Providence Baptist Association” against Los Angeles Hompa Honowanji Buddhist Temple, Julius A. Goldwater, and G. L. Hodel. The motion of defendants for a new trial was granted “on various grounds, including insufficiency of the evidence” and plaintiffs took an appeal from the order. Joined with plaintiff Brown were Providence Baptist Association, a voluntary association, hereinafter called the association, First Baptist Church, a religious corporation, and Providence Baptist Institute, an unincorporated theological association, all colored religious groups. Defendant Los Angeles Hompa Honowanji Buddhist Temple, hereinafter called the temple, is an unincorporated Japanese religious organization ; defendant Julius A. Goldwater was its attorney in fact, and defendant C. L. Hodel was a tenant of a portion of the property in question and remotely, if at all, involved in the controversy.

By separate leases on January 5, 1944, the temple leased to the association a church property on Central Avenue, and “a Buddhist Temple, office building with stores, office and basement” on East First Street in Los Angeles, together with certain personal property therein, for the term of one year, commencing January 1, 1944. Although having entrance on the two streets, the premises are entire, consisting of three buildings used as one. The lessee entered into possession and portions of the premises were used by First Street Baptist Church, a member of the association, and Providence Baptist Institute, also a member of the association, the former conducting church services and the latter conducting classes in theology in the respective portions of the premises occupied by them. Plaintiff L. B. Brown was the pastor of the church, and president of the institute. The leases contained a provision that if it became lawful for Japanese aliens to again use the temple premises for religious purposes or for the lessor to sell the premises, the lessor might terminate the lease and repossess the premises on thirty days’ notice, [736]and another provision that if the leases should be in effect at the end of the year and the lessor should have a better offer of rental, the lessee should have the first right to a lease for an additional year at the increased rental.

There were but two issues in the case, namely, whether, defendants were'guilty of forcible entry or detainer and, if' they were, the amount of damage suffered by plaintiffs by reason of defendants’ entry or detention of the premises. There? was a conflict of evidence on the first issue and the only proof of damage consisted of such inferences as might have been drawn from the facts hereinafter stated.