Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-08-25
LAW COURT DECISIONS.


Town Thursday:
Aroostook. IS. Moses Smargonsky W
Maurice $. Klein. Rescript
The plaintiffs claim was sustained
only by his own personal. uncorrobor-
ated testimony. The defendants tegtt-
fnony, equally positive. was corroborat-
cd in several important particulars
Much Of the admitted conduct and acts
Of the plaintiff were inconsistent with
his testimony. We feel that the YER
dict was wrong.
Motion sustained. New trial granted.
Penobsyot, ss. Lewis Cowan W. The
Bangor e Old Town Railway Co.
Rescript.
Strout, J. 1t is the opinion Of the
court that the evidence justified the
verdict for defendant. While it was
contradictory, its weight and reliability
were solely for the jury to consider.
ana we cannot say that their conclu-
sion is wrong. Most of the newly dis
covered evidence might have been and
should have been known TO plaintiff if
he had used due diligence in preparing
his case. and the remdihder is not
deemed Of sufficient importance to re-
quirc another trial. II introduced. we
40 not feel that it would probably
change the result.
Both motions overrulcd.
The following rescript was received,
Wednesday:
Knox 81. Jonathan 5. Wiloughby vs..
Rescript Wiswell. j. Courts are
liberal in the allowance Of amendments
and by the statute. II. $. ~, sec. 10,
mere defects in form and circumstan-
tial errors and mistakes may be
But this statute does not
permit Of an amendment which will
add d new or different cause of action
ard this court in numerous cases held
that such amendments are not allow
able
Held: that as the amendment offered
in this case would introduce new and
additional cause of action, they cannot
be allowed. The lease to the defend
ant for term Of three years contain
ed this clause with the privilege, at
the end Of said term, of releasing for
a term of 10 years or any part thereof
at the same yearly rental" Upon the
last day of the original term the enant
gave To the landlord the following
the action contained in our lease Of the
written notice: In accordance with
block. we desire to notify
you that we vii release the said block
for the space Of three months from the
expiration of the lease" Held; that
a l, CIV
be construed at a present demise To
take effect in the future at the option
IF the lessee and that the notice given
by the tenant TO the landlord, accom-
panied by a continuation of possession.
was sufficient, without other act. to
continue the tenacfty under the lease
for the period named in the notice.
The tenancy under the lease having
terminated on Dec. l. 1896, upon which
day the defendant company vacated
the premises and rendered the keys to
The plaintiff, the defendant is not liable
for any rent subsequent to that day.
A lease contained the usual covenant
upon the part of the lessee to quit and
deliver up the premises to the lessor
at the expiration of the term, in as
good order and condition, reasonable
use and wearing thereof, or inevitable
accident. excepted. as the same are or
may be put into by the said lessor,
and not make or suffer any waste
thereof" 1t also contained this pro-
vision. with the privilege of removing
whatever partition said company may
desire to remove during their term of
occupancy. provided said company re-
place said partition in as good condi-
ton as they find them.
The property leased was a brick
Of three stories and an attic.
When the lessee took possession. it con-
sisted Of two stores upon the ground
floor, Offices on the second floor and
halls and ante rooms upon the third
and attic floors. For the purpose of
using the whole building as one store.
the lessee took down partitions, changed
the locations Of the starways and
made numerous other alterations.
In this action to recover damages,
among other things. for the defend
ants failure 10 comply with the terms
If its covenants to restore the building
to the same condition as when rented,
held: that the measure of damages
is the cost of replacing the partitions
ana restoring the building to the same
SO far as these voluntry al
terations are concerned. as Ii was when
leased.
The court does not decide whether
the plaintiff would have been entitled.
{ he had sued for ID. to have included
n his damages recoverable a reason
able sum for the loss Of the use Of the
premises during the time necessary to
'estorc the building to its former con-
lition. because this claim is not speci-
led. i'll the account which the statute
requires to be annexed to the writ.
The plaintiff also seeks TO recover in
his action the expenses incurred by
him in placing an elevator in the build
ng and in removing the same, but the
,ase does not disclose any contractual
" other liability upon the part of the
defendant to reimburse the plaintiff
or such expense.
Case rcmanded to the court at nisi
,riuS for the assessment OF damages in
with the opinion.
The constitutional dispute over the Ca
adIan Senate'S reiCCtment of the gov
redistribution bill which was
by Mr.. Charles Russell Eng
Sh solicitor a IN, Dp,niuiD1 a. eminent