The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

MONDAY.

GARDNER V. CAZENOVE AND OTHERS.—In this action
the defendants consented to a verdict being entered for
the plaintiff for 10001, with costs, subject to a special case
to be agreed upon between the parties.
RAWSTHORNE V. HOLT.—M. Sergeant Wilkins, with
Mr. Rae, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hill, Q.C.,
with Mr. Segar, for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
stated the case. He said that in the month of July, 1849
the plaintiff took from the defendant, as a yearly tenant,
at 301 per annum, the house and premises called the
Washhouse mill, in Birtle-cum-Bamford, near Bury, the
terms of agreement, among others, being that the defen-
dant should keep the premises in repair, so far as regarded
the outer walls, roof, and principal timbers ; and that if
the plaintiff did any damage, he would have to make it
good. The mill being an old concern, was at the time in
a state of dilapidation, and the jury would, therefore, not
be surprised to hear that for some time after the plaintiff
came into possession, alterations of a most important
character were required. The mill was worked both by
steam and water, and it was soon discovered that the
pipes which carried the water to the wheel were insuffi-
cient in point of bore. New pipes were then substituted
for the old :ones, and then it was found that they poured
in a quantity of water as to render the goit too narrow,
and consequently a new goit was supplied by the defen-
dant. It was then found that the boiler, which had been
standing for some time unused, had become caked with
rust, and when it began to be used, large flakes of the
metal came off. A new boiler had consequently to be got,
and then when the boiler was supplied, it was found
that the chimney was too small, (laughter), that there
was not sufficient draught, and that to get up the requisite
heat, a quantity of coal would have to be consumed, which
would render the speculation a ruinous one. At first, the
defendant demurred to putting up a new chimney, but
afterwards, when it was proved to him that it was indis-
pensable, and when he discovered that if he did not build
it he would lose an excellent tenant, he consented to build
it. He desired the plaintiff to look out for some man
capable of doing the work, and that he was not to exceed
20s per yard, and he contended that a'chimney, seventeen
yards in height would be sufficient. The plaintiff, on the
other hand, contended that it should be twenty-one yards,
and ultimately it was agreed between them, that the de-
fendant should erect seventeen yards of the work, and
also be at the expense of making a sufficient and proper
excavation for the foundation, and that the plaintiff should
add the other four yards at his own cost. The excavation
proceeded, and when they got to a depth of about ten
feet, the defendant contended that it was sufficient for the
purpose. The plaintiff contended that it was not, and
pointed out that the site selected was insecure, inasmuch
as the foundation was being excavated from what was
called made earth. Wilful men, however, must have
their way. The defendant ordered the work to be pro-
ceeded with, superintended it himself, and told the work-
men to desist after they had got to the above depth. He
then sent in the bricklayers, and the chimney was in pro-
cess of being built, when it was discovered after they had
got up to a certain height, that it leaned to one side more
than another. The defendant was then so thoroughly con-
vinced
that the foundation was insecure, that he ordered
the persons who were building the chimney to pull it down,
in order that a further excavation might be made. After
some portion of it had been taken down it again righted,
and then the defendant said it was unnecessary to pull any
more down, and ordered the men to resume the work of
erection. The chimney was accordingly built to the
height of 21 yards, but shortly after its completion, it
again got out of the perpendicular, and leant very much
over the mill. On the 15th October, last year, a tremen-
dous storm passed over the neighbourhood. The chimney
was much shaken, and some days afterwards fell across
the mill, broke in the roof, destroyed a large quantity or
the I:achinery, and struck one or two persons, who were
at the time at work there, but fortunately killed no one.
When the chimney had got out of the perpendicular, the
plaintiff gave notice of it to the defendant, and after its
fall, he admitted that he was bound to make good the I
damage, and promised to do so, but having failed to make
good his word, the present action was brought. Mr.
Hill then stated the case for the defendant, and in
doing so said, that it would rest largely on a conflict of
testimony. Mr. Holt was the owner of the premises in
question, which was used as a shoddy-mill, and when the
plaintiff rented it, the nature of the agreement under
which he entered in the possession was, that after the
first alterations, the plaintiff should keep the mill in re-
pair. That was the nature of the agreement, and not
such as had been set forth by the plaintiff, and on the
occasion of its being made, the defendant's son was pre-
sent. In proof of that, he might mention that when the
new boiler was put in, it was only on the condition of the
plaintiff consenting to allow six per cent on the cost to
be added to the rent. As to the erection of the new
chimney, it was done solely under the directions of the
plaintiff, and the def-ndant merely contributed 161 towards
the work, which was to cost 211 altogether, to secure its
being well done. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff. The damages are to be estimated out of court.