RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2964, 19 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases,

M'Culloch v. Arnett. —Claim of L2 5s and costs or goods delivered. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, Richmond v. Montague,—Llß 14s, for damage done to plaintiff’s premises by the defendant. Mr Stewart appeared for the plaintiff, and stated that since the summons had been taken out defendant had paid L 3. Plaintiff' had let a house and land to defendant, and defendant as tenant had done a great amount of damage to a number of articles—indeed the destruction to the property had been such that it could not have taken place without being done intentionally.—The plaintiff" said he leased a house and land in Cumberland street to defendant. The tank was in good condition when be lot the premises, and when plaintiff gave up possession the tank was relied about tbe yard and full of holes. The stable was also mueh damaged. He thought about L 5 would about cover the damage to tbe stable. One side of the fencing was also totally destroyed, the fowl-house had also been damaged, and seven or eight squares of glass had been broken. In consequence of the damage done to the premises he had been obliged to pull them, down and rebuild them. —W. Harrop, house agent, said he had seen the tank lying in the yard, and found the stable damaged, and he thought it would cost L 5 to put it in the same condition as when the house was first let He was not aware of any damage done to the house unless it might be a few broken windows and locks. —Defendant stated that when he took the place it was in a fearful condition, and he had been obliged to place in the yard a great many boulders from the Water of Leith to make a foundation. There was no drainage. The tank -had been greatly destroyed by children.—Margaret M‘Kenzie said the house was not tit to live in when defendant took the premises. She had seen the tank blown down by the wind from off the stand. When the windows were touched for the purpose of cleaning the glass would fall out. —A number of other witnesses gave evidence.—His Worship said the evidence on both sides was most unsatisfactorily given. There appeared to have been no person to properly look after the premises on the part of the lapdlord. He would not esfci*

mate the exact damage, but he would give i judgment for L 6 11s, with costs. )