Claim $41.75.
This was a claiwn for the value of certain property (window and door hooks, lobes, &e.,) missing from a house on the bubbling Well Road, leased by plaintiff to Defendant denied his liability.
Wot. Lesr, sworn, stated—On the 10th of March last, I leased iny house on the Bubblin, Well Road, to defendant, for 12 months. produce the lease, Defendant gave notice on the 7th Nov. that he proposed to quit. Under the tamis of the lease, he was responsible for the house and fittings until the expiry of the Tease, From information I received, I visited the house in the middle of December, and
gate open, the hall door and all the bedrooms, found that, the place was quite deserte, the with the exception of two, unlocked. I went all over the house and found no on charge. I visited defendant, and told him the state of affairs, and he promised to send rome ouo to tal at once. On the Lay ed information that ter read) concerning it, to which he replied, and confirmed the fact that four slobes were mi up the house at once, in consideration of his pying the rent up tothe 20th March 1875.
id not accede to the proposition, but informed him that I held hit i i the Jease expired. Matters so went on until the end of February, when I told defendant that T was willing to take over the house, if he was agreeable, ite agreed, and "I therefore was twelve days in the louse before the lease expired. [t did not occur to me then to ascertain if anything was missing. I. afterwards found that al the window and door hooks in the downstairs rooms, and one bedroom were gone, and gas bui Thad mut the bills to defend la to me. I purchased the globes from the Gas Company, and the hooks, &e., from Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca. (381.75). I also claim $3.00 for window in the stable, and $7.00 for five hard-wood stable bars.' T did not make any claim until the 10th of March last.
Defendant objected to the claim, on the ground that Plaintiff had asked to come into the house before the lease had expired, to which he consented; therefore he con: that, as no claim was made at that time, plaintif® had waived it, Me admitted the matter of the globes, but if it had been pointed out to him by plaintiff then, 90 that he could have sven for himself, and' bad the opportunity of replacing the articles, there gould have been no doubt as to his liabi But as plaintiff had not done a0, to say the east, it was open to doubt.
Boxer expressed his opinion that there could be no rescuable doubt that the bad been it was unprotected judgment for plainti the amount lined, but without costs, inasmuch as had tiff had given notice to defendant of the missing articles when he resumed possession of the house, the defendant would never have disputed his Jiability, and thus there would have been no action, April 2nd.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.