The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-04-28

citing IN his brief La Z arge yS. MANS
field, 81 Barb, 345-8. He also takes
the position that the defendants hav
ing undertaken to repair are liable
for the injury complained of. An
architect, Ripley, was called by
plaintiffs. He says, II was convinced
upon examining the roof and sky
light that it could not be made water
tight in the way that they had at
tempted to do it. 1t was not water
tight because it (the skylight) was
laid fiat down ON the roof, and the
water on the roof turned down on to
it to flow across it and the skylight
being 80 fat the water did not dow
off properly. The skylight had to be
taken off and reset at convenient
pitch and tin around it. The attempts
to patch it did not make it leak worse.
I donbt if skylight put in in the
way I first found that one, could be
made water tight" The new sky
light was put in by defendants.
The plain conclusion from this evil
dence is that the leak and damage
was owing to the original faulty con-
struction of the skylight.
Plaintiffs counsel also cite Gill vs..
Middleton, los Mass. ATT, 1.-The land
lord although not bound to make
repairs voluntarily proceeded to do SO
and was held liable for injury received
in consequences of such repairs not
being done in proper manner"
This statement OF the case is taken
from plaintiffs brief. But fuller
statement OF the case is necessary.
It was an action for damages for per-
sonal injuries to person through
falling into the vault of privy.
Plaintiff was tenant of defendant.
The privy was out of repair and de
| PENDANT promised to put it in repair
and made some repairs on it and told
plaintiff he had made it safe and she
need not fear to use it. The floor
gave way and damage resulted. The
evidence was that the repairs were
unskillfully made and with insult
able materials. There was no obi
CATION on the part of defendant to
make repairs. The Court say,"A land
lord is under no obligation to
make repairs, unless such stipula
ton makes q part of the Original
contract; and any promise to do so
founded merely on tne relation Of
the parties, and not one OF the condl
tions Of the lease, would be without
consideration, and for that reason
would create no liability. But al
though q gratuitous executory con
tract of that kind would not be bind
ing upon him, he would place him
self in q very different position il b
should see fit to treat it as binding
and actually enter upon its fulfill
ment. 1t is we'll settled, thai
for an injury occasioned by want Q
due care and skill in doing what on
, has promised to do, an action ma
be maintained against him in fave
: of the party relying on sue
promise and injured by the breac
of it." ~
Now, if, as was evident, it was th
original faulty method of sconstru'
ton of the skylight that allowed tI
water to go through and damag
plaintiffs goods and not the stteml
! of the defendants to patch it up b
cement and by replacing some of tt
], fushings which as Mr.. Ripley say
! did not make it leak any worse, no
r can the declaration for gratuitous +
: pairs by a landlord warrant jud
!, ment for plaintiffs Z
t When plaintiffs ascertained tn;
. their evidence disclosed a differe
d liability of defendants they mig
II have moved for an amendment
>. their declaration. Not having do
d so, and the case coming to us on t
IS facts as found by the trial Con
% we are compelled to say that the U
"a disputed evidence does not susta
IS the declaration, and SO we revel
s. the judgment and order new tri
Other points made by defer
g ants as to their not being liable eitf
r. for defects in the original plan
to construction, or for not havi
to stopped tho leak, we do not consie
ne necessary to discuss.
ne q. Creighton for plaintiffs; A.
ad Hartwell for defendants.
m Honolulu, April Goth, 1893.