The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-05-02

/ fully suSsSirS this finding OF fSct, Snd
/ II the declsrstion hsd been for dam
sSes for bzsSch 81 the agreement 70
/ bald. o. upon 5 eovenSnt express o.
implied thSt the building should %
finished, 1T znd suitSble for plsinti1s
1 Intended use. this evidence would sp-
( pSrsrtly hsve justified S Judgment
sEsinst defendants
Z The counsel for plSirJitfs intro
I ducsd evidence 10 suStSin csse OF
I implied covensnt on the pSrt Of s
lessor thSt the building should Ce
finished Sni It fo- use - store,
( citing n his brisf Is Fsrge v MSuS-
field. 81 Barb. S45-S. he also takes
[ the position thSt the defendants hsv-
. ing undertaken % rspSIr are liable
7 for the injury complained u. An
S-rbitecs, Ripley, wsS csllsd by
plaintiffs He ssyS, i Was convinced
upon examining the ruof snd SKY
light thzt Il could not be inside wste-
tight IN the way shst they hsi st
tempted 70 Do il. 1t wSs not wstsr
tight because It (the skyhghT) wss
l6ld FIST down OF the roof. and the
wzts- On the roof turned down on to
/ Il 70 low scruss It and the skyhght
being 50 fist the wster did not foY
Of properly. The skyhght hsd to be
tsksn OF and reset ST convenient
pitch and TN Srouu6 il The sttsupts
10 psteh It did not make II lssk worse.
I doubt II s skyhght put in IN the
way I trss found thst one. could be
usds wste- tight The new sky
light was put II by defendants
The pIzin conclusion from this eyi-
derce L th2t the leak and dsmsge
vas owing to the original faulty con
structi0n OF the skyhght.
Plaintiffs counsel also cite Gill vs.
Middleton, los Mass Al, The land
lord although not bound 70 make
repairs voluntarily proceeded to do so
z-i vas held liable for injury received
II consequence Of such repairs not
being done II 3 proper manner
This statement Of the case : taken
from Diziutiffs' brief But 3 fuller
statement u the case l. necessary
Il vas 81 action fO- damages for per
sCCzl Injuries 70 person through
falling into the vzCLt Of p-iyy-
Plaintiff vas & tenant Of defendant.
The prlvy vas out Of repair AID de-
PENDANT promised 70 put 1t N repair
and made some repairs On It and told
plaintiff he had made Il safe and she
Iced cCt fszr to use II. The floor
gave way and damage resulted The
evIdsuce EEs that the repairs we're
UcsGLltuIly made and with insult
able materials There was 10 obi
gz-iou q the part Of defendant 70
make repairs The Court say. 4 lsrd-
I5rd = under 10 obligation to
make repairs. unless such g stipuls-
ton makes { part Of the original
contracts and any premise 10 do 50,
founded merely on the relation OF
the parties and not one Of the condi-
ti1cs Of the lease. would De without
consideration, and for that reason
would create 10 EsbiIity- But 81
though gratuIt0us eLec1tCTy COZ
tract OF tlss kind would not be bind
Ing upon hin Ne would place him
self II z E5-y different position Il he
should see Il 70 trest Il 6 binding.
and actually enter upon tic fulfill
ue1t- Il Is vel settled that.
for q injury occzsi5rsd BY want Of
due cars ard skill n doing what enc
has promised 10 Do. 81 seton may
Be maintained szzic5- hin IN favor
q the party relying On such
promise and Injured ly the breach
q
Nov. II, q vas evident. II V7zs the
original faulty u5zLCt % C1c=tr1c-
tI11 q the sEyliELt thai allowed the
EzteE 20 20 through and damage
plaintiffs gods and not tbs attempt
q the defendants 70 pztch II upby
czEzC- and By replacing some Of the
6EsEICgs which 6 Mr. Ripley says
did not make II leak any worse. how
cz1 the declaration f1r grztuit01z re
pairs b : landlord warrant g iudg
us1t t1r plaintiffs
When plaintiffs ssce-tsiued that
their evidence disclosed E different
liability Ct dzt=1dsrts they might
have moved for 81 amendment OF
their declaration. Not having done
80, and the case coming to u OF the
facts Is found b. the trisl Court,
W ere compelled to say that the u
disputed eTideuce does not sustain
the declaration. and 80 Ne reverse
the i1dgusut sud order E rev trial
Other points made b. defend
ants 6 &c their not being liable either
for defects II the original plan u
construction O. for not having
stOgped the leak We do not consider
necessary To discuss
G. Creighton f0T plaintiffs. i ).
HzrtEeIl fUr defendants
HocoIuIa- April 21th- 1888
CoycCEzEE oFEloS OF ErcEETUs, J.
Ian still q tie opinion that the
facts dsTsloped b. the evidence sd-
diced II this case undoubtedly eu-