The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-23

arising from either ignorance Of duty partially
friend the cabman, the plaintiff brings this
against the defendant, and the jury very properly
verdict against the star for $3.50 and costs.
Before Judge Thompson.
TINE LIABILrrY OF TENANTS FOR REPARs-
Apirany %. AUsrt.-The plaintiff keeps hare
store in Cathsrine street The store was rented 70
by the defendant about three years ago. Durind
last six months the plaintiffs goods have been DAM
to the amount Of about 5000, by becoming wet F
rain, which leaked in upon his premises. By the 4
of the lease executed by and between the PARTED
plaintiff took from the defendant the irst and 81
stories, the premises being two stories high, wild
attic; and il was agreed that the plaintiff to Il
all repairs necessary to Keep the premises in teri
BILE condition. The story above the plaintiff was q
pied by another person. There was conflicting evil
witness swearing It came from defective gutter 4
the second story; defendants evidence tending to
that 1t came through hole cut into the roof 81
plaintiff for the purpose Of inserting flagstaff thai
and also through defective covering which the II,
tiff had placed over his show window. The phi
contends that he Is entitled to recover Of the defl
the amount of the damages in this case on the gsl
in good repair during the term for which they
hlred, that by the terms of the lease, he was
bound TO repair that portion Of the premises actl
occupied by him; that he had no right to repair th
ter because be in possession only Of the stori~
low that locality.
Thompson, jim the absence Of any covenants ID
contrary, . landlord II bound to keep his tenemea
good repair during the period Of the tenancy. R
this the tenant agreed to make the repairs, ~
should become necessary. II the rain came into
premises in consequence of the cutting Of the hoh
the roof by the plaintiff Of course he does not reel
any damages Of the defendant. II IL came in third
any defect in the gutter which it was the businaa
tie defendant to remove, then be 10 ansWsrabIe for
neglect to do 10. To arrive ct correct determines
OF this case, II In not ct al necessary to decide hov
where the watsr got In upon the premises. The pl
L till bound himself to make all necessary repairs.
Their the water came through tbs roof any otherr
Of the building Is alike MINISTERIAL II the defect
the roof then 1t was the plaintiffs duty to remedy H.
cause the roof was . part Of the premises which
hired. TIE same may be said IL the defect existed
the gutter. There are parts of the premises in wi
all the tenants alike interested and It was
tho duty of plaintiff to repair the roof Of the bull
as the ceiling of his own walls The roof building
rs much part Of the premises OF the first it ID
the last or attic story. Judgment for the defend,
with costs.
ACTION FOR A MACHINE.
Steele rs. Beatty -Ths action is brought to req
for constructing machine for ruling paper. The
fence set up was that the machine was never compile
that if it was it was made for Mr. Town, and that
defendant promised to pay for it. That such prot
was void by the statute Of frauds. The proof was
Town was the inventor of new principle in the
structicn Of ruling machines and that the one in
ton was made by plaintiff for defendant under tn,
rection Of Town, and with a view to demonstrate its
ration. The machine was completed as far as it WI
be done by the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for
and costs.