A RUNNING TAR

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 107, 7 May 1923, Page 11

A RUNNING TAR

WHOSE LIABILITY?

DECISION RESERVED.

Lengthy argument as to the liability of a landlord for damages sustained by his tenant through defective conveniences on the premises leased has been hea.rd by Mr. E. 'Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court. The plaintiff in, the case, the' hearing of which occupied about three days, was Harry Vincent Westbury, cycle dealer, of Lower Hutt, and the defendants were the Waiopehu,Levin Land Cp.,^td., the landlords, the Lower Hutt Borough Council, and the Hutt River Board, wbjch are also tenants of the building. Mr. George Toogood appeared for the plaintiff, Mr; T.. S. W.eston for the Waio-pehu-Levin Land Company, and Mr. E. P. Bunny for the Borough Council and the River Board.

The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was a tenant of the part of the Town Hall building, Lower Hutt, and occupied a shop on the ground floor. The Land Company, which owned the property, also let rooms to the other two defendants, the Lower Hutt Borough. Council and the Hutt River Board, which occupied offices on the floor abov» the plaintiff's shop. On sth January last someone had left a water tap running in the lavatory on the floor occupied by the defendant tenants. The water overflowed the basin and flooded the shop of the plaintiff, causing considerable damage, as compsnsation for which £175 Is was claimed from the defendants, who were joined for. the purpose of determining the liability of one or all of the par* ties. .

Throughout tlie hearing," many intricate points of law were discussed, and numerous authorities were quoted oa both sides.

Mr. Toogod held <8 at the landlord was liable, in that there "had befi faulty construction in the basin and wastepipe, and further, that the landlord should have taken sufficient steps to insure that th 9 watei would not overflow the basin in, such circumstances. The landiSrd, also, he contended, was liable for a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, implied in the contract. Tiia other two defendants also were liable for neglept to keep tho waste pipe clean, so thai it would not become stopped up, and also for misusage of the tap, and not preventing strangers from having access to the building, if the tap had been, left running by some person who did not have authority to use it.

The defence was a complete denial of liability.

The Magistrate reserved his decision,