Plaintify, a piano tuner, sued to recover $15, for work done by defendant's order, being {$10 for repairs to pedal of piano, and $5 for tuning the instrument.
want pleaded non-indebtedness, be-caus she did not know the work had been $15.' Sheadmitted sending a written or Plaintiff to repair the pedal, and he sent Chinaman, who did the work in avery In fact, she bad been told the damage was very trifling, and would cost only about 50 cents to repair. She bad previously employed plaintiff to remove the iano from one room to another on the same oer, for which ho sent her in a bill for Tls. 12, which she refused to pay, and he then reduced $10, which she paid. The pedal wae not observed to be broken until after the instrament bad been removed. Shortly after the Chinaman left after making the repairs, Pisinti came and ran his fingers, over the eys. Perhaps he called that tuning it, but she did not, and therefore objected to pay.
Plaintiff in reply, said the Chinaman he sent was a practical' piano repairer, and had deen eight years at the business. The repairs to the pedal occupied him more than two hours, and he (plaintiff) afterwards went and did what was necessary to tune the instrament.
Defendant said the Chicaman was not in the house half-an-hour.
Plaintiff, on being asked to describe the nature of the repairs to the pedal, said he could not do so in the mechanical terms necessary, but could show what was done on the instrument itself. There were two pedals, and one being out of order, threw the other out also, with charges for such work in Shanghay, and is charges were very moderate com
been refused payment The wages of the Chinaman who did the work were $30 per month, with $1 extra for Sundays, and 20 cents an hour overtime, if he worked after five o'clock. said plaintiff should recover and ho thought if he allowed $2 for repairing the pedal, it would probably be ple, for he failed to see how a couple of hours' work done by a Chinaman, even if his wages were $30 per month, could be charged $10 for.
Judgment for plaintiff, for $7; cost of sum-mous, $3.
J. Mooney v. J. 8. Kwwown3s, Plaintiff claimed $13 for a month's ren! Tie of notice, and also the return of certain articles of furniture.
Defendant had paid the money into Court before the action in order to have his own furniture delivered to him.
Plaintif stated that in December, 1874, defendant came to at his house, No. 9, Boone Place, agreeing to pay $10 per month rent. The rooms were empty, but plaintiff furnished them at a cost of $114, which the defendant bad since repaid. Defendant occupied those apartments until June Inst, and then, expressing a wish to be more Rio. 8, next door, to oblige him, and ho occu te, plaintiff consented to take the house
pied two rooms there, his rent being increased to $13, with a verbal agreement that there was to bea month's notice given on cither ide. Defendant left on the 0 ber, without" having given noti tiff claimed the month's rent the end of April, or begin Gefendant wrote to the effect that his m ments were very uncertain, and he might have to leave at the end of the snonth, but he did not then go. He (plaintiff) went down to Hongkong, and while the ssu, received a note from the defendant, telling him he should leave at the end of that meath. The been written at the end of telling def dant tobe sharp and out of st. Plaintiff replied to it,
the house at the end of the month, as he did not wish to keep the two houses on his hands. The defendant, however, did not wwe until the end of September, when, having paid hi rent up to that date, he left without giving notice, He removed his own goods, but left those belonging to plaintiff in the house.
Defendant denied that any agreement as to month's notice had been made between them, and alleged that plaintiff had more than once said it was not necessary between friends. He, however, admitted that he wrote Hers mentioned by plaintiff: Thesecond was taken on the understanding with dierd that it should be vacated at any time it might be required, but that it should be the last to be let—the landlord also reserving to himeelf the right to let the two lower rooms, Early in August, he wrote to plaintiff in Hongkong that lo would like to change his quarters, and on the 27th of that month, plaintiff wrote back that he might the end of the month. He thought jowed that no notice was necessary,
defendant's practice had all along been as if His Hoxoui, in giving judgment, said there was an agreement to give a mouth's notice, In April he had given exactly amonth's notice, and why should he have done that, if there was no agreement? Then, again in August, he did very much the same thing. The matter was a very simple one—it was altogether a question of fact, which of the two persons concerned was stating accurately cement was between them, ye case of a lodger, no noti required, unless there was a distinct agreement to that effect or unless there was a cus. tom of the kind. No custom had been attempted to be shown, and the question, therefore, was simply, was there an agreement between the plaintiff or defendant? A verbal woald be quite sufficient, and that plaintiff swore to, It was pretty nearly twelve months ago (which would explain the Gontradictory evidence on the point), but hia Honour thought t was probable there waa such an agreement: wede. He would mention or two reasons for forming that opinion, One was, that if a superior tenant was bound to his landlord to i ikely to be careful to age with his under-tenant, Another and the main reason was, that defendant had acted in a way as if such an agreement existed, for isit did not, there was no reason ive an hour's notice, When he found giving exactly a month's notice, it seemed as if he thought he was bound to give that notice. His Bonow fore came to the conclusion that plainti version was more likely to be correct agreement to gi was bound to give it, and not having given it, he must therefore pay the month's rent sued for; and coste of Court, $3. niture, as it had been it remained in the louse, which in the tenancy of plaintiff, it was in possession, Plaintiff demurred to this, and asked if he was to be put to the expense of removing it back to his own house. The defendant held the key of the second hous His Hoxoor explained to plaintiff that resi-ce was not necessary to make and therefore the goods were the second how With respect to the ko, dant handed over the key in Court, and the case terminated.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.