
    Edward Steer, Appellee, v. Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,997.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Shebidan E. Fby, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 10, 1918.
    Rehearing denied June 24, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Edward Steer, plaintiff, against Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, defendant, to recover rent for the use of premises. From a judgment for plaintiff for $489.06, defendant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Landlord and tenant, § 456
      
       — what constitutes use of premises by tenant. In an action to recover rent, the occupation of the premises by leaving therein articles ■ which, while not defendant’s property, had been loaned to him by the owners, held to be a use of the premises for his benefit.
    2. Landlord and tenant, § 456* — when occupancy of premises shown. In an action for the rent of premises, where the defense is that the premises had been abandoned, evidence that defendant sublet the premises after the date of the alleged abandonment and received the rental therefor is sufficient to show his occupancy.
    3. Landlord and tenant, § 323* — when exclusion of deed to show transfer of premises to oumer by tenant proper. In an action for rent, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant had surrendered possession to the owner of the fee, and the exclusion of a deed claimed to show the transfer to such alleged owner held proper.
    4. Interest, § 23* — when allowed for delay. In an action for rent where it appears that the refusal to pay was for the sole purpose of delaying or defeating a just claim, plaintiff will be allowed interest on his claim.
    Lee J. Frank and Mary Lee Colbert, for appellant.
    Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illonois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.  