RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9563, 20 October 1892, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, October 19. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, 11.M.)

Barker v. Rose and another.—ln this pre-viously-heard case, in which Mr Sinclair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr James for the defendant, his Worship gave judgment as follows :—

The first question is the right of defendants to remo\e the shop counter and window fittings, and this depends upon whether they were in the shop at the time Mr Beissel went into occupation. Mr Beissel's evidence is that they were there at the time, and he had them altered to suit his purposes. On the other hand, Mr Anderson (whose firm fitted up the shop for Mr Beissel) says the shop was empty when he went into it to see what work was required. He has no distinct recollection whether his firm put in the counter and window fittings, but he believes it did do so. Mr Watt says he did the joiner's work, that the shop was empty when he first went into it to take measurements, and that the counter and fittings were made by him for Mr Beissel. It is many years since the shop was fitted up, and I think the conflict of evidence arises from faults of meniory. The weight of evidence is in favour of plaintiff, and there is less likelihood of two men being wrong than one. The evidence as to value shows the counter to be worth L 6, and the window fittings about L 9. As to the gas pipes,. there is no evidence to show a right to remove them.' The value is proved at 50.-. There was no right to remove the box for the piping, but according to Mr Rose's evidence it contained no service pipe, but only a drain pipe, I assess the value of the damage by removal at 40s. As to the wall paper, I understand this : that the wall was originally painted and mirrors and other fixtures for the business' put .up, and subsequently the walls were papered, but not in those parts hidden by the fixtures, and that the removal of the fixtures has left patches of wall unjjapered. There is no evidence to show when the painting or papering was done. The presumption is the wall was not papered until it required either that or painting. The tenants were not bound to do either, aud I can't see why they should be liable because the walls were not all covered with paper, orpaper of one pattern, I think the same principle applies to the ceiling so far as the paint is concerned. The screw holes should have been filled up. hut that is only a trivial matter. Some damage seems to have been done to the skirting boards, but I am not satisfied it was all due to defendants. I will estimate this damage at 15s. Judgment forplaintiflt for L2O ss, with costs of court (395), witnesses' expenses (30s), professional costs (31s 6d).