CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10173, 24 February 1911, Page 6

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

IN CONNECTION WITH HOTEL REPAIRS. I At .'■ the Masterton Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr L. G. Beid, S.M., a case was heard in which Thomas B. Dwan and Thomas W. Young, of Wellington, claimed from, William Eagle, of Masterton, the sum of £3l 10s. The statement of claim was to the effect that defendant was the tenant of plaintiff's . Taueru Hotel,- and was bound to paint and paper the hotel and to keep it in proper repair. ' This, it was alleged, he failed to do, wherefore plaintiffs claimed £27 10s damages. Plaintiffs also claimed £4, being the value qf■ a tank alleged to have be.en wrongfully removed from the hotel in question,;.; f Mr D. K. Logan appeared for-the plaintiffs, and Mr C. A. Pownell for the defendants.

Wilfrid B. Ingram, licensee of the ( Taueru Hotel, deposed that lie took possession' of the hotel on August 22nd, 1910, when the premises were in a very bad state. The paper in some of the rooms was down, and the paint needed renewing both inside and outside. Tenders were called, for repairing, and witness sent them to the landlords. Witness paid Mr Fox, who was the successful tenderer, £27 10s, since when he had deducted the amount from his rent. There were two tanks on the premises, and in November last > defendant got judgment | sigainst witness for their rema%i. Defendant came to tsfke them, w<heiv one had water <in it, and witness; him to desist and gave him an oiyjgijto remove them when empty. Witness subsequently erected a tank for his own use.

Frederick Cooper Fox deposed that he was the successful tenderer for making the repairs at "the hotel. On consulting the plaintiff Dwan. witness decided to do only the work that was. necessary, and reduced his contract price accordingly. ' '«', ; Sergea*nt Miller stated that .he had visited tne hotel on August 26th, 1910, when he found that the building showed signs .of leaking;, and needed a general overhauling. ; 'Tlie work of Fox, which witness saw later, added greatly to. the appearance of the touse.. There was a leak in the roof in the top story. Mr Pownall stated that the question with regard to the claim for the tank did not need to be dealt with, as it-had not been removed. Evidence that everything possible .was done to make the building habitable would be 'called. •■•' '■,.'

' Thomas .Tames Porter, ex-licensee of the Club Hotel, who: acted as yajftex' for Mr •' lngram when' he took delivery , of the hotel on August 22nd, said. the. matter of repairs was discussed, anclv witness understood that, arrangements had been made before they'left the house. Ingram agreed to do the work if the material was on the premises. i William Eagle, late licensee of the Taueru Hotel, stated that his lease of the premises .provided that with ess.' should paper the inside once in the first three years and once in the last .three years. Three rooms up-stairs were painted each year at the'order of the Licensing Committee'. ; outside of the; building had been painted on three occasions instead of 'twice; Witness had more than complied with 'the terms of the lease. The plaintiff Dwan visited the hotel just before the anniial. meeting of the, Licensing Committee, a month before witness left the house.' Dwan was fairly satisfied with the'condition of the building, except for a few repairs. Later-witness received a letter from Bwan's solicitor reauesting the. repairs'' tojbe effected.' When witness'-left the.iiojlse the arrangements were so made that witness had nothing further to do. It was arranged that Ingram should, do, the work himself with the material on the premises, which was inspected by Ingram. , ;;.

H. W. Pownall, law clerk, Masterton, formerly licensee of the Central Hotel, Masterton, stated that he,went to the hotel with Mr Dwan when he inspected the house. As a i ; esult of the inspection, a letter was written to Eagle requesting certain repairs. Witness acted as valuator for Eagle on August 22nd when the settlement was made. Witness corroborated the evidence of the previous witness concerning the arrangements made with Ingram with regard to repairs.' -The Court adjourned for an hour in orded w enable His Worship to peruse

the written evidence of the plaintiff Dwan. On resuming, His Worship said that ifc was evident that defendant entered into a covenant which he had no reason to break. The evidence showed that when he left the premises there were certain repairs left undone. The sole question to consider was whether the whole £27 10s was spent on the repairs which defendant had left undone. His Worship did not think that it was all required. No evidence had been given to support the claim regarding the tank, which had not been removed. Judgment would be given for plaintiff's for £8 10s, with costs amounting to £4 lis. Leave of appeal was granted on the application of counsel for the plaintiff.