The record-union., 1891-03-06

| ".
FooTE, G.
THE COURT.
! For the reasons given in the foregoing
opinion the Judgments is affirmed.
(Filed february IS, 1917
Appeal from Superior Court, Los An
geles County-Lucien Shaw, Judge.
For appellants Stephen NJ White.
For Respondents, c. +. Cronin, Baker
d Long, J. 0. koepli, Will. D. Could.
DEPARTMENT. ONE.
! 1AwTHoRNE EFT AL,
Respondents,
! SIEGEL EFT AL.
Appellants.
! This action was brought to recover
damages for trespass alleged to have been
committed by the defendants in break
! ing and entering" upon the premises
held, used and possessed by the plaintiffs
under q lease, and "torcibly and unlaw-
ftlily altering and changing the construc-
tion'' of the premises ''by lowering a
portion of the ceilinc'' thereof. ssand by
closing UP and obstracting the windows
and gratingS thereof through which
plaintiff obtained light and air for their
said premises"
1t was further alleged that these
acts of the defendants rendered the
/ SNSiiiASSS eot1iiiy ClliiO anu useless 1Or
| the purposes OF their business, which was
that OF carrying on barber-shop and
| bathroom. That they were thereby COM
! PEELED to vacate the premises, and did
| vacate them under this conlpulsion on
the Sd day Of September, 1888. (Fols. 7-S.l
The lease NOS expiring until the 26th OF
April, 1891.
The damages claimed were from the
loss of the established trade and business
OF the plaintiffs; from that occasioned by
! having to abandon portion of the per-
manent improvements which they had
made on the leased premises; from that
resulting from the plfiHtins being com
peiled 10 abandon and i5se the benefit of
| their leasehold interest; from that which
they suffered by being deprived OF the
benefit OF their agreement with partv
| who allowed them q hot water privilege
| for the use of their barber-shop and bath
room, and by reason of expenses entailed
on them in tneir enforced removal from
| the premises.
The plaintiffs obtained Judgment for
$500, q very much Tess sum than they
claimed. From that and an order deny
ing new trial this appeal is taken.
! The evidence certainly tended to show
that the plaintiffs occupied and used the
| premises as they claimed, and that the
| treSpass was committed by the duly
authorized agent of the defendant Siegel.
| The main argument of the defendant
seems TO be on the alleged erroneous rul-
ingS of the court as to the measure of
damages recoverable in the action, in the
admission of evidencean in the instruc-
tionS upon the matter, which it gave, re-
fused or modified. r.,sg,as
In this connection the defendant urges
that no damages could be recovered by
| the plaintiffs for the loss of the hot water
1 privileges, which they derived from an
agreement with Z. Durham, mentioned
in the eighth paragraph of the complaint.
It. as we think, the evidence tended to
show that the plaintiffs were compelled
to abandon their place of business by the
trespass of the defendant, then they were
entitled to recover whatever amount
will compensate for all the detriment
proximately caused thereby, whether it
could have been anticipated or not" &C.
! c., Sec. 3333.)
| If the evidence tended to show any
detriment suffered blythe plaintiffs in los
ing this hot water privilege, and the loss
thereof was proximately caused by the
trespass complained of, the plaintiffs were
entitled to be compensated therefor, and
it was for the jury, under all the evidence,
to say ii they were entitled to any COM
pensation, and if so, how much.
The evidence did show that the plain
tlffS had such a privilege, and that they
paid certain amount OF money therefor,
and that it was of beneficial use to them.
| There is also evidence which tends to
| show that the cause of their leaving the
| premises was that the trespass COM
| planned of made their place of business
| unfit for the purposes for which they
had leased, occupied and possessed it,
| The trespass caused them to abandon the
water privilege; the loss of the water
privilege was one of the injuries result
ing from this abandonment. This injury,
then, was proximately caused by the tres
pass, and the plaintiffs were to be COM
pensated therefor. We perceive no error
in the eighth instruction given nor in the
evidence offered and admitted in sup
port of the demand.
1t is further urged in behalf of the
appellants contention that the inStruc-
ton given by the court is at variance
with section 1888 of the Civil Code,
and misleading in that it permits and di-
rectS the jury to take into consideration
anything however remote which might
appear to them to indicate loss or HARM"
appellants p. and A., p. 81 The in
struction reads as follows:
"Ninth-The jury are instructed that if
they believe from the evidence that the
plaintiffs had leasehold interest in the
premises in question, and that by reason
of the wrongful acts of the defendant,
said leasehold interest was rendered
wholly or in part worthless to the plaint-
IFS, or that they were compelled to aban-
don the same, then the plaintiffs are en-
titled to such an amount as will compen-
safe them for all loss or harm suffered
thereby, taking into consideration the
length of time Of said lease and the length
of time it had been enjoyed by the plaint-
ifs, and the value of such advantages as
they may be satisfied by the evidence
were part of or directly grew out of
said leasehold interest, but not including
in this item anything for loss of hot wa
ter rights or established trade and busi-
ness"
Fairly considered this instruction an
nounces to the jury that the damages re-
coyerable by the plaintiffs for any loss
suffered by them which rendered their
leasehold interest wholly or in part worth
less, occasioned by the wrongful acts of
the defendant, must be measured by the
whole duration of said lease under the
terms thereof, and the length of time it
had been enjoyed by them up to the time
of the reception of the injury, and by the
value of such advantages as accrued to
them under the lease, which grew directly
out of their interest therein, but not to
include anything which resulted from
the loss of hot water rights or established
trade or business, and that these damages
must be in such an amount as will com
pensate them for any such loss.
This did not, in our Judgment, direct
the jury to give damages in their nature
remote or speculative, but was confined
to verdict for such detfinent onIy as
was proximately caused by the wrongful
acts of the defendant as affecting loss from
the injury done alone to the leasehold