The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-05-02
ozn11y q rE covzr 81 v17, c..

-TrsspsSs II Case Erd corresponds
vs-y uez-ly With the form gwen n
C1it5y's PieGiIrSs- . 81. for 8 de-
cIz-stion n tori, BY 5 tensrt- not
bound 70 rsuzr. EE1ruSt landlord
whC hsi co-rsrced repairing, for
not doing repairs II . proper uzn-
uzr.- After ssssirE .Ezr plaintiffs
clziu q defendants, 5000, Tor dsn-
Szes resulting 20 them for injury
6ocs by detecizrrs e the property.
/ e the goods. wares and Esrchsn-
Gzz- cns-relS zr6 stec-s- o: plaintiffs
II Aprl- 1872 n the store q p-slc-
It's On Fort street Ho1ol1LC. the
dsc-z-zE5-c proceeds Tor tnzt p-slc-
tits Esrs II Ap-Il- 1892 tenants 70
tie Gztsrizu-s q s certain uessCEgs
s5cuz-s On the waikiki SIDE o. Fort
street. II E0-c-1lc. f-r g tern u
Tsars- and the said E5ssGzEe Ezs
iILzu5izs=i and 0Zs Of repair AMI II
pSr- C1- II fur Icc1ps-C1- ard the
d=ta-5s--s- On u abolt Ap-L-- 1892
e1Es-el upon and II part performed
certain repairs necessary and proper
70 b 6C-s. ard which the plaintiffs
Esre CCs bCCu1 O under any lust CT
legal obligation % d Or perform
YET The tz:s-iz-ss al not Use due
care sklIl @ diligence n performing
CT cczuIs-I1E the sad repairs but
Eru-Et1lIy neglected and refused -
e %, Whereby a. sad times tcs SAID
message us greatly and 1n1scss
ssrily injured and damaged aud iEs
Use and 0cc1pa1oc impaired and the
goods wares and E=-c1zciISz- chzt-
ts-s ard Effects OF plaintiffs greatly,
and unnecessarily injured dz-zged
and Lgst. 60 the dz1sge q the pIsi1-
tiss n the sun q SI000.- etc
he secuEd count ! similar and
AYERS particularly TIA. defendants
did rot Use due care skill OF dit
secce II performing ard completing
tie repairs L. leak II the root ! and
TIE roof I=sk=d and ran and water
cane INTO the SAID usss1EEs and
upon the goods etc
Tc5 case VS. heard 5y B5cz=Et0-.
J EE1. tie Jury being waived zen
Gzr=1 i-dE-=L- t-- plaintiffs fur
$50 10 e which. g vel e &c Ger
tzl1 rulings made during the trial.
e1ce-1l--z are taken Cd this C1-r-
ty dztE-iz-ls-
After the eTI1z-cs q Plaintiff
Gu-E EEs II ard tie lease under
which t1s plaintiff. hold the te1s
Es-t n question had been Introduced
and fed : ErIEC5c agreement vas
rendered b. plaintiffs between tEsu
ard dzss-izr-z t-r tEz building ard
leasing = he said tenement This
Els aizittsd against dstsctz1ts'
oti=c5I1z
Tie d=clzrsEi-E n this case being
t1r dstz13szts negligence II repair
Ing tie L=sE II the rorE- We fail 70
see how the z1-zceiE1t contract 10
erect The b1-l1-1E Ezs relevant The
lease already II eFI1=lcs Ez= the
last contract betEeeL the parties. and
Il crested TIE relation between then
q landlord and tenant and that was
al that suzId O. shown between then
II accordance With the decIzrstIuu-
II tEz action had been based upou z
covenant q dsts1dzuts either e1-
press O iEpIsd- that the building II
question Ess E and suitable. and
va e D kept II for the intended
Use OF It by plaintiffs the agreement
70 build and lease would have beeu
euZuetEEr EFIlzcce- The form OF
the scsIg1 chosen Is MT based upon
any Obligation q defendants To y
pzIr. AID Lc1= = sFeCTei II TIE de-
clzrsti11- Tie Court below mad
Terrs1tlE 1l=cccceITed the action
In Its opinion Il says This Is a
acton 70 recover damages rssuItirg
g Plaintiffs from defective SKY light
II tie store leased b. them from de-
fsuizrts-= ard after reciting the
sErsznzuf 70 b1IId and lease and the
lease thereafter made and that the
plaintiffs went Tito possession says :
Son after II rsIned- and the sky
light Izzkzi- damaging soue goods
Defs1dz1- agent vas uotIted- and
so-s work vas done OF the sky
Ezht- bCt Ehs1 tie neIt rain
cane L leaked worse than ever,
ard Z large quantity q gods
were damaged More ECrk Vas doue
g. EzrI11s TINES O. tbs said skylIgtt,
ard eventually Il vas removed and .
rev oos put II o. g rev plsu- raised
eboTs TIE root FrCu ths. tine OF
there has beeu 10 LAX 1t
seems to De thai this case eznuOt Dc
treated II The sane way &c II t5is had
beeu a cd b1IIdzzg tkzt light =
cure repairing. This va Ess
6aILting sci the plaintiffs were the
frs occ1Pznz and had right &C
pres1ue thzt roof aud sEylight were
tght z11 water proof- Il void sp
peer trg- tie eTdeuee thai the coz
straetiau a tins skyiigat vas faulty
znd could neFer have been Esds
Ez-er tighf. and therefore the build
Ing coalf ros b cocsIfsrsd eo0
uless and 61lsLsd- The evidence