Claim $25, balance of wages.
Defendant, a pilot, engaged the plaintiff in February last year as lowdah to his boat, at $40 per month, plaintiff hiring four men as assistants, During several months of last year, defendant appeared to have paid plaiatifi's salary at uncertain intervals, in amounts varying from afew dollars to twenty and more la, On January 28th, defendant paid the nce of his month' and charged him, but still left a balance of $15 of last year's account. 'The boat was then laid up, and a watchman engaged, plait tiff claiming $10 in respect of such engag ment, Defendant denied the any last year's arrear Tietendant) had now in Court the watchman's Jaintiff had simply receipt for $6, his month's pa; His Howour gave judgment for $15 and costs, March 2.
Yen-von-Kino v, M. Manrix.
The original hearing took place on Saturday the 2ist ult., when the plaintiff sought to recover $75 from the defendant for dain caused to the roof of his (plaintiff's) house by the fall of chimney erected by the defendant, the tenant.
His Honour, addressing plaintiff, said—The defendant does not appear, although he has been given notice that I shall decide this case this morning, but I shall nevertheless proceed togive judgment, The louse has been produced to me, and after looking at the terms I have come to the conclusion that you cannot recover. The repairs that he is bound to execute under the lease are simply the ordinary tenant's repairs, that is to say, he has
order; but these terms except the roof, the to, keep the premises generally in good external walls, and so forth. Of course, independently of the provisions of the ease, if he makes any unauthorised alteration of your premises, it gives you a cause of action against him, Butit seems to me that directly you have had natica of any alteration, ifyot do not approve of it, you should immediately give him notice to restore them to ginal condition, and if he does not comply with your requirements, he will be ponsible for any consequences, however remote in time, that may follow after the notice was given. You say you were not aware of it. That may be perfectly true, but He does not know you are not aware of it. on must remember defendant's position.
You were absent from the place, but during your absence you were represented here by an Attorney, and it was his duty to see to these things on your behalf. The application of this principle to your case is this. "The chimney, which you allege damaged the roof, was erected quite a twelve-month before the damage was committed, and you are too late now in coming forward and asking that the damages should be made good. You should have given him notice a reasonable time after its erection to remove it, or that you would hold him responsible for the consequences of its erection. You did not do. so, but acquiesced in the alteration he made on the property, (which the defendant thought an advantage), and if it has turned out to be a disadvantage instead of an advantage you must put up with it. Supposing you had been here when the chimney was raised five feet, what would you have said; would you have said to him, take it down?
Plaintiff—I would.
His Hoxour.—Then presumably he would have done it, and no accident would have occurred. But neither you nor your representa tive took any notice of it.
Plaintiff.—The fact is he did not see it.
His Hoxour.—I cannot help that. I cannot allow your claim.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.