A DRAPER'S CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2209, 5 June 1908, Page 1

A DRAPER'S CLAIM.

DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFF. At tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Air. AV. A. Barton, SAL, delivered judgment in the ease of Amelia Catherine Neill (.Mr. T. Alston Coleman) v. Walter James Sykes (Mr. 11. J. Finn), as follows: “The plaintiff 'claims to recover from the defendant tlie sum of £56 Is lOd, for that by raison of the defendant on or about the I6tli day of February, 1908, wrongfully suffering water from liis surgery above thesliop in tho occupation of the plaintiff to overflow through the ceiling of tho plaintiffs shop, the stock in trade or part thereof of the plaintiff was damaged and injured. And the plaintiff claims the further sum of £2O for that, by reason of tho wrongful act of the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff lost four days.’ trade, and tho profits thereof. tho plaintiff claims the sum of £76 Is iOd I have already decided that in my opinion the damage complained of resulted from the negligence of defendant. “Tho only question, therefore, is wliat amount of damage the plaintiff suffered in consequence thereof. Air. Hookey was appointed by_ plaintiff the daiftbge done,"and the basis upon which he proceeded was to first ascertain tho invoice and selling price of the goods, and then assess the amount of deterioration caused thereto by water from defendant’s premises. Air. Miller,’who represented defendant, agreed with Air. Hookey in his estimate of the value upon the basis named. Air. Alillcr was instructed by defendant to value 'according to - the invoice prices of the 'roods, hut the question to my mind is, what was tho value of the damage done to plaintiff’s goods in consequence of defendant’s negligence, iam of opinion that the method adopted by Mr. Hookey was a fair and reasonable manner of assessing tho damage. Ido not think the invoice price would be reasonable compensation for the damage done. I therefore allow tlio sum agreed upon by tlio two valuers,' viz.. £56. “In reference to the claim ol £2O for four days’ loss of trade and the profits thereof, the evidence is that plaintiff’s shop was practically closed for business from Monday, 17th February, till Thursday, the 20th February,'inclusive. It appears that Thursday is the day appointed for closing ships in this town, from one o’clock in tlio afternoon, and that being so, plaintiff’s shop was onh- closed three and a half days intend of four. There is evidence that Airs. Rogers purchased some small articles in plaintiff’s shop on tho afternoon of Monday, 17tn February, hut that when she went there she found the door closed, and it was closed again after she left. I do not think therefore that it can be said that the premises were really open, for business purposes. It is obvious that the plaintiff must have suffered some loss of trade and profits in consequence of tho dau'.ago to her goods. It is difficult to accurately estimate tho amount of Joss she has sustained, but I think in all the circumstances tho sum of £lO wilL be reasonable allowance under this head. Judgment will therefore be for plaintiff for £GG, with costs £7 ss. ________________