Charles street before the section of the gallery | poses; that there was no defect in said gallery upon which Miss McConnell, with about seven which was apparent to an observer, and that or eight other guests, was standing, suddenly he had effected all the repairs which were gave way and fell, and precipitated her and necessary a short time before the accident, and, others to the hard flag pavement of the side- if any further repairs were desired, it was the walk, a distance of about 13 feet. Two others duty of the tenant to have notified him to fell on top of her. Her right leg was broken make same, and, in default of his so doing, to above the knee, and she was bruised all over have made same, and deducted the cost from the body. She remained six weeks in bed in the amount of rent due or to become due. He the Charity Hospital, suffering excruciating denies that plaintiff's daughter went on the pains and agony; and she could not walk with premises with the knowledge or consent of out a crutch for months after the accident. himself, or even with the request or at invitaAfter healing, her injured leg was found to be tion of his tenant. He avers that his tenant shorter than the uninjured one. Dr. Schmit possessed and used the gallery daily, and, had tle, who had not measured the extent of the same been in the dangerous condition it is repshortening, thought it was between to inch. resented to have been, it would have been the Dr. E. J. Graner, who made a critical exam- duty of the tenant to have warned the young ination, testified that it was about inch. people composing the surprise party of the Both physicians concur in pronouncing the in- danger there was of crowding thereon, as they jury permanent, and that Miss McConnell will are admitted to have done; that the proximate be a cripple for life. She will always limp. cause of the accident and of the injury which The cause of the falling of the gallery was was inflicted upon plaintiff's daughter was the fully proved. It was rotten to such an extent sudden rushing of the dozen of young ladies that no repairs could have rendered it safe. out upon the gallery simultaneously, same not The inspector of public buildings of the city having underneath any proper and suitable of New Orleans, Mr. Peeler, made an exam- support, as is usual when it is expected to be ination of that portion of the structure that resorted to by an unusual assembly of persons. did not give away, and ordered it torn down, As matter of law it was contended by the deas dangerous to human life." fendant's counsel: That the precept of our Code which provides that the owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it (Rev. Civil Code, § 2322), applies only to passers-by upon the public highway and to neighbors, and not to persons voluntarily en|tering upon private premises, and there suffer Admitting his ownership of the premises in question and the lease of Burgess, the defendant, for answer, avers that it was rented for the uses and purposes of a residence, and was in thoroughly good condition at the time the accident happened, and that it was amply safe for its usual, ordinary, and contemplated pur ises, and the defects in the premises are obvious. Harpel v. Fall (Minn.) 65 N. W. 913. The owner of an hotel is not liable to a guest for the fall of an awning known to be unsafe, unless A landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a he is bound by the lease to keep the awning in refall of a child of a subtenant by reason of the ab- pair. Fellows v. Gilhuber, 82 Wis. 639, 17 L. R. A. sence of a fence between the property and the street 577. when the fence was removed before the beginning of the term during which the injury occurred. Peterson v. Smart, 70 Mo. 34. In Moynihan v. Allyn, 162 Mass. 270, which was a case of an injury on a platform used in common by all the occupants of a tenement building, the court refused to permit a recovery on the ground that the defect was patent and in the same condition when the lease was made, and that it was the duty of the tenant to provide against injuries upon it. The owner of a building is not liable for injuries to a child of his tenant which were caused by its attempted use of a fire escape as a balcony. McAlpin v. Powell, 70 N. Y. 126, 26 Am. Rep. 555. But in the trial court there had been a recovery by plaintiff upon the ground that the fire escape was required by statute, and therefore the landlord was liable for not providing a safe one. McAlpin v. Powell, 1 Abb. N. C. 427. A child injured by falling from a window upon a roof and through an unprotected skylight therein cannot recover therefor against the landlord, although the landlord owed the duty of maintaining the roof in a safe condition for the tenant to hang clothes over. Miller v. Woodhead, 104 N. Y. 471. A landlord is not liable for the death of a child of a visitor of his tenant who is drowned in an open hole 58 feet from the rear of the dwelling house, which was dug at tenant's request. Moore v. Logan Iron & S. Co. (Pa.) 4 Cent. Rep. 505. The owner of an hotel is not liable for injuries to a guest by reason of defects in the walk or platform forming the approach to the building. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mangum, 68 Tex. 342. A landlord is not liable to a servant of his tenant for injuries occasioned by a dangerous condition of the premises existing at the time of the lease, although he subsequently promises without a new consideration to repair the premises, if there is no covenant to repair in the lease. Perez v. Rabaud, 76 Tex. 191, 7 L. R. A. 620. In Lower Canada the landlord is bound todeliver his premises to the tenant in good repair, and the owner of property is liable for injuries caused by its ruin through want of repair, and the wife of a tenant may recover for injuries caused to her soon after taking possession by the giving way of a por. tion of the building through want of repair. Simmons v. Elliott, Mont. L. R. 5 S. C. 182. There is a case in one of the lower courts of New York which seems to be out of harmony with the line of authorities upon this question. The child of a tenant may recover for injuries received by the falling upon it, in the yard, of a large stone which had been left standing perpendicularly against the fence in such a way as to be a trap for children, if it was there when the premises were leased. Schmidt v. Cook, 12 Misc. 449. If the stone was in the condition described, the defect would certainly be patent, and the tenant and consequently his child would assume the risk. Effect of concealment by landlord. If the landlord is guilty of anything like bad faith, so that he leases the premises with a concealed defect upon them, he will be liable for the injuries caused by such defect. What will render him guilty of bad faith has not been fully deter ing an injury. That a person who thus enters | That at the time of the accident the tenant was the premises of another by the permission of the tenant is, with respect to the owner, a mere licensee, and sustains a relation to him somewhat like that of a subtenant, and can acquire no greater rights than the principal lessee; and if he enters without permission of the lessee, he is a trespasser, without any privity of contract with respect to the owner, through the medium of the lease. That a tenant cannot recover damages of the landlord by reason of his failure to make repairs, when the arrearages of rent are sufficient to enable the lessee to make them in case of the lessor's failure to make same after he has received due notification of the necessity of same being made. And he avers that at the time of the happening of the accident the tenant was in arrears a sufficient amount to have defrayed the cost of the necessary repairs. On the trial there was judgment for $2,500 against the defendant, predicated upon the verdict of a jury, from which he has appealed; and in this court plaintiff has demanded that this allowance be increased to $5,000. The proof at the trial substantially conforms to the foregoing statements pro et con. It shows: That shortly after he rented the premises to Burgess the defendant sent carpenters to the leased premises, with instructions to place it in good order, and that materials were ordered and delivered for that purpose, and used by the carpenters. That all the repairs necessary were voluntarily made by the defendant, and that no demand was subsequently made by the tenant for additional repairs. in default in making payment of his rent, and was subsequently notified to vacate the leased premises on account of his nonpayment of rent. That the gallery was not in a condition to stand this unusual strain is not denied, but, on the contrary, was generally known among the guests; and that during the course of the evening that the accident happened the visitors were warned and admonished to desist from dancing, as the gallery would not stand the strain it would produce. That, notwithstanding that warning, the guests rushed out on the gallery when the fire bell rang, causing it to give way and fall beneath their accumulated weight, causing the injury complained of to the plaintiff's daughter. Plaintiff's counsel puts his client's right of recovery upon the following provision of our Code, viz.: "The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction." Rev. Civil Code, § 2322. And the further provision, viz.: "Every person is responsible for the damage he occasions, not merely by his act, but by his negligence, his imprudence, or his want of skill." Id. § 2316. These provisions of the Code treat of offenses and quasi offenses towards the general public, and they impose upon the owner of a building the general duty of keeping it in such a state of repair and preservation that it will not occasion damage to anyone; and, in case of his failure so to do, they declare that he is answerable in damages to one who shall suffer injury in consequence of his of falling, but which defect is not patent, he will be liable for injuries to a servant of the lessee who is injured by the fall. Reichenbacher v. Pahmeyer, mined. Of course if he knows of the concealed defect, and fails to make it known to the tenant, he will be guilty of bad faith. The point which is not settled is whether or not the landlord owes anyfactive | 8 Ill. App. 217. duty to search for concealed defects. The idea A railroad company over whose tracks another that he owes such duty seems to have arisen very company by virtue of a contract runs its trains, is recently, and very little discussion of the matter liable in tort to the latter's brakeman, who, while is found in the reports. If such duty is found to in the due performance of his duty on the employexist, then it logically follows that if he fails to give er's train, receives a personal injury solely by reathe property such examination as a landlord should son of the negligent construction of the owner's give his property before renting it for the use to station house. The court says it is settled law that which he knows the tenant will apply it, and such when the owner lets premises which are in a condiexamination would have disclosed the defect, he tion which is unsafe for the avowed purpose for will be guilty of actionable negligence. This is the which they are let, or with a nuisance upon them rule of reasonable care and diligence which is ap- when let, and receives rent therefor, he is liable, plied in STENBERG V. WILLCOX. But the adoption whether in or out of possession, for the inof that rule immediately raises the further ques-juries which result from their insecurity to persons tion whether the care required of the landlord for lawfully upon them. Nugent v. Boston, C. & M. R. the discovery of defects is greater than that re- Co. 80 Me. 63. quired of the tenant. STENBERG v. WILLCOX implies that it is, and is apparently supported by statements in some of the cases. But the old cases applied the rule of caveat emptor to the tenant, and the most that can be said is that the doctrine that the landlord has the duty to search for concealed defects is a new one, recently broached, and has not yet received consideration enough by the courts, at least in cases involving liability to tenant's guests or servants to indicate what rule will be adopted. See note to Hines v. Willcox, post, If the premises contain a hidden defect which by reason of its location is likely to cause injury, and the landlord knows of the defect but fails to notify the tenant of it, the landlord will be liable for injuries to the tenant's child which are caused by reason of its presence. Coke v. Gutkese, 80 Ky. 598, 44 Am. Rep. 499. That statement of settled law is true only when applied to one of the exceptions to the rule, and cannot be accepted as an accurate statement of the general liability of the landlord to the tenants, guests, or servants. A landlord is not liable for injuries to a visitor of his tenant which are caused by a defect in the premises at the time they were leased, unless he knew, or by reasonable diligence might have known, of their dangerous condition. Borman v. Sandgren, 37 Ill. App. 160. A landlord is not liable to an employee of his lessee for illness caused by defective plumbing where he is not charged with fraud or deceit, or with any more knowledge of the defects that the lessee had. Angevine v. Knox-Goodrich (Cal.) 18 L. R. A. 264. A landlord is not liable to the employee of a tenIf the owner of an hotel places therein a chande-ant for injuries caused by an explosion of gas in lier which is hung so insecurely as to be in danger adjoining property owned by him by reason of de neglect, imprudence, or want of skill. But | served that the articles cited do not rest upon counsel for the defendant contend that the contractual relations at all, but the liability of article first cited must be construed in connec- the owner arises ex delicto alone. He is held tion with the provisions of article 670, which liable because he is deemed guilty of a fault in are as follows, viz.: "Everyone is bound to not keeping his building in such a safe condikeep his buildings in repair, so that neither tion as it will not do any member of the their fall, nor that of any part of the materials public an injury. It is the thing which offends, composing them, may injure the neighbors or and the owner suffers the consequences of the passengers, under the penalty of all losses and offense. The imposition of the penalty results damages, which may result from the neglect from the idea that the faulty or defective of the owner in that respect." (Our italics.) building is an invasion of the security that These articles have been frequently construed municipal government guarantees to the citizen by this court, but in no case of which or wayfarer in the public thoroughfare of the we are aware have they been applied to a city. This reason and spirit of this rule does case circumstanced as this case is. They not seem to apply to the person who seeks have been construed as applying to per- admission to the premises, or who goes there sons injured while walking along the street. upon the invitation of the owner or tenant, Howe v. New Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 481; Barnes either on business or pleasure; for in such case v. Beirne, 38 La. Ann. 280; Tucker v. Illi- the ordinary rules of trespass or contract would nois C. R. Co. 42 La. Ann. 114. And they apply. Visitors are, in a certain sense, memhave been applied to persons occupying an bers of the family. Looking at the evidence adjoining building, who have sustained injuries as we have related it, it is manifest that, if the by reason of another building falling against members of the surprise party had passed along and demolishing it. Knoop v. Alter, 47 La. the banquette underneath the gallery of deAnn. 570; Steppe v. Alter, 48 La. Ann. 363. fendant's house, and had not entered the These are obvious and necessary safeguards the building at all, it would not have fallen, and law has provided for the denizens of towns and plaintiff's daughter would have suffered no cities, to whom old and dilapidated or badly injury; consequently, we must look to some designed and constructed buildings are a con- different principle of law on which, if at all. stant menace while attending to the ordinary the defendant can be held bound. In our and every-day concerns of life. But it is not opinion, the guests of the tenant have no claim readily perceivable upon what principle of duty against the landlord for damages they have or equity these precepts of the Code are to be sustained while on the premises. The guests extended to the accidental occupants of a house, of the tenant are not guests of the landlord. having no contractual relations with either the During the term of the lease the owner may proprietor or his tenant. But it must be ob- be said to have, for a consideration, parted with fects in gas fittings put in by a former tenant, with a heavy door on it in a dangerous condition where there is nothing to show that the latter was at the same time, promising to put it in a safe conguilty of negligence in having the work done, or dition, will be liable to a person who goes there to that the landlord knew that there were defects in deliver goods to the tenant, and who is injured by the fittings. Metzger v. Schultz (Ind. App.) 43 N. the falling of the door. Baird v. Shipman, 33 Ill. E. 886. App. 503. In Gwinnell v. Eamer, L. R. 10 C. P. 658, 32 L. T. N. S. 835, a person went up to the window of a leased building for the purpose of conversing with another person in the room, and in so doing stepped upon a grating which gave away, and he was injured. It did not appear that the landlord knew of the unsafe condition of the grating and the lease contained a covenant binding the tenant to repair. The court held that the owner was not liable for the injury. One branch of the question of the landlord's bad faith is the construction of a building which is not sufficient for the use to which it is put. The owner of a storehouse which was erected under his own superintendence to lease to the United States government is liable to a person whose goods are destroyed by the falling of the building in consequence of its insufficiency for the purpose for which it was erected. Carson v. Godley, 26 Pa. 111, 67 Am. Dec. 404. That case followed the principle of Godley v. Hagerty, 20 Pa. 387, 59 Am. Dec. 731, which was the case of the fall of a building used for a government storehouse and the injury of a laborer at the time rightfully upon the property. But in the latter case it appeared that the owner built loosely, carelessly, unskillfully, and negligently, at the same time knowing that the building was to be used as a government storehouse which would require a well-constructed building. Of course such conduct made him guilty of bad faith. Effect of duty to repair. The agents of a foreign owner having full charge of a building which they hold for rent, who lease it If the landlord has agreed to keep the premises in repair, and after notice neglects to do so, he will be liable to an employee of the tenant, who is injured by the defect. White v. Sprague, 9 N. Y. S. R. 220. The owner of a wharf which is let under the agreement that the owner will make the necessary repairs will be liable to a person who goes upon the wharf for the purpose of delivering goods on board a vessel loading at the wharf who is injured by falling into a hole in the planking which is caused by decay and has existed for some time. Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co. 62 Me. 552, 16 Am. Rep. 503. In case a tenant sublets a portion of the premises, and the goods of the subtenant are injured by the falling of the walls, he cannot recover of the landlord for the injury unless the landlord had notice or knowledge of the subletting, since he was under no obligation to keep the premises in repair for the subtenant. Donaldson v. Wilson,60 Mich. 88. Under the Georgia Code the landlord has the duty of maintaining the premises in repair, and if he permits steps leading to a rented storehouse, and which also lead to his own storehouse, to get out of repair to the injury of one who goes to the storehouse to transact business with the tenant, he will be liable therefor. Archer v. Blalock, 97 Ga. 719. If the landlord has not been notified by the tenant to repair he cannot be held liable for injuries to a guest of the tenant which were caused by the defective condition of the premises. Ploen v. Staff, 9 Mo. App. 309. the :Ver 1000 mana if The er of and which sensei fra under thed and a way a5ourtenant dit s wc are fre an 1,1ry 16, a nsrimer 'f the pose by miscat a tefect in the wit. Abbott v. Jackson. * WP. 419. In the absence of 26,vecant be the and cit pa.r. he s not able to a decast of the musee fr in Jimes received by reason of the cremises here ming us if resa.r. O'Brien v. Car well. W0 Bart. BOT. Achi fireract cannot reer car for injuries caused by the riving WAT CATaller filtE A DIAZZA whch bet Deen constructeri for hang out eiocnes if it was in good excdition when the esse was made and had been or the in wedge of the tenant gradually decaying until its eccdition bad nad nemme langerocs. Flynn v. Hacton, 5 How. Pr. 33. If the and.ord has paid the tenant to repair the defect, the lantord will not be lable by a visitor of the tenant stored by reason of the defect. Sterger V. Van Sicher 3 N. Y.S.R. WAK DELween the bath The anderd who has leased premises to an athletic baciation is notiable for injures to a visitor by falling against a glass done upon slipping on a room and the dressing room. t.though the door is needless v standing in the bawazeway, where it does not appear that it Was there when the fremises were raseri. Heath ▼. Metropolitan Exhibition Cc. 34 N. Y. S. R. . The owner of a mili is not liable to an employee of the tenant for injures caused by defects in the sa tinery in the mill. Johnson v. Tacoma Cedar *her Co. 3 Wash. 72. A anderi s 70T ÍRČIE 7) A VIRite of as tenant for in ajure wanting trom the condition of the demises causet w the mat's own act. Eyre v. Arma, DR VOU SA The set of the enan” makes the premises bangerous the owners at ladies. i person empøved by the remant ar is wors, a the premises. Handy, side v Pres 15 Mass. 23. The wner of a building is not able for injury 11 -moi vee VC à esce 10 100 fece who is injured by atembeng 20 pass between a partition erected or the essee smi a stat placed there by the azieri before rae (ease, since the act of the wese. 7 angtang caused me premises to be unsafe. Ryan v. Wisen S X. Y. 614. Am. Rep. IN 3 How P 17 Affirm ng 3 Joces & 8. 473. The 'wer of an botei wie zives the essee the AEN simriete in unei mzieted pertion of the budding is not latie te injures to a guest who is injured by letters resulting sciely from the impr..ement Glass v. Ciman, 14 Wash. 535. Structure for we of publie. Theres some tendenes by the cearts to require greater care and bout the landi, ed to a stricter laDuity in case the structure s designed for pabue user will be frequented by the purile. Owners of a wharf who let it are labee for injures to an empi, pee of the tenant who is injured by PERSOE of deteers when are net se hidden that they engid not have been severed by such examina css the uses to which the wharf will be placed reasccably require. Wenden v. Baxter, Gray, H The owners of a vier are babie for mjuries sustarned by reasca of its defective construction and dangerous en lince, notwithstanding the premises are in possession of the lessee, who has covenanted to keep them in repair if the detects existed when the owners leased the property. Mody v. New York, 6 Bart. 2234 How. Pr. 8. The owner of a wharf who euses it knowing of a defect in it will be able to one rightfully using the wharf for injures caused by the defect. Joyce v. Martin, 15 R. L. 338. If a pier is in an unsate ecndition when it is leased, the owner is able to a person rightfully TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT. Morris B. STENBERG and Wife, Appts., v. James M. WILLCOX, Jr. (96 Tenn. 163.) A landlord is liable to a boarder on premises leased for a boarding house for injuries sustained by reason of the unsafe and dangerous condition of the premises, which was known to, or might by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence have been known to, the landlord at the time of the lease, but not to the boarder. (January 31, 1896.) Messrs. J. W. Gaines, Hamilton Parks, and Edwin A. Price, for appellants: The court failed correctly to state to the jury the law applicable to the case, or to correctly declare the law governing the liability of the landlord, as developed by the proof, or the liability of the former for injuries received by the plaintiff. Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N. Y. 381, 12 L. R. A. 843, and note. It is the duty of the landlord, when he leases property, to disclose to the tenant the true condition of the same, and to make known to the tenants such defects as he knows to exist, or which he could know by reasonable diligence; and if he fails to do so he is liable to the tenant and third persons for injuries sustained by the premises. APPEAL by plaintiffs from a judgment of reason of the dangerous or unsafe condition of the Circuit Court for Davidson County in favor of defendantțin an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the opinions to the case of Hines v. Willcox, post. thereon for injuries caused by the defect. v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28, 17 Am. Rep. 295. Where the owner of a wharf leased it to a tenant,, and at the time of the lease it was in an unsafe condition, and the owner then knew or could by reasonable diligence have known of such condition, he will be liable to one lawfully thereon for injuries received by reason of such unsafe condition. Albert v. State, Ryan, 66 Md. 325, 59 Am. Rep. 159. Coke v. Gutkese, 80 Ky. 598, 44 Am. Rep. 499; Cesar v. Karutz, 60 N. Y. 229, 19 Am. Rep. 164; French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132, 3 Am. Rep. 440; Edwards v. New York & H. R. Co. 98 N. Y. 249, 50 Am. Rep. 659; Godley v. Hagerty, 20 Pa. 387, 59 Am. Dec. 731; Carson v. Godley, 26 Pa. 111, 67 Am. Dec. 404. Swords | the third story of a building, which is reached by two flights of steps with doors similarly arranged at the bottom of each, one opening on the street and the other on an unguarded piazza roof, will be liable to a person who attends the entertainment and in attempting to leave mistakes the doors and goes out upon the roof, from which he falls and is injured. Camp v. Wood, 76 N.Y. 92, 32 Am. Rep. 282. But in another case it was held that the owner of property who lets it for a public exhibition, the lessee to make any and all alterations necessary, is not liable for injuries caused by the fall of a gallery which was built for a limited number of people but which the lessee uses for the accommodation of all which it will hold, if there is nothing to show that the lessor knew that the gallery was not sufficient for the uses to which it was likely to be placed, or that it would be used in a way which would endanger its security. Edwards v. New York & H. R. Co. 98 N. Y. 245, 50 Am. Rep. 659, Affirming 25 Hun, 634. The lessor of a wharf is not liable for injuries to an employee of the lessee caused by defects in the wharf, unless it is shown that he knew or with reasonable care might have known of the existence of the defect when the wharf was leased. State, Bashe, v. Boyce, 73 Md. 469. But even in these cases the rule governing other cases of the general class has sometimes been applied. Thus, a lessee of a pier, who has covenanted with the owner to repair and has sublet without any covenant with the subtenant to repair is not liable to a person rightfully on the pier for injuries caused by a defect in the pier which arises after the lease was made. Clancy v. Byrne, 56 N. Y. 129, 15 Am. Rep. 391. In Stratton v. Staples, 59 Me. 94, where plaintiff was injured by falling into an unguarded rollway communicating with the basement while going into a rented store for the purpose of finding the owner of the building, the owner was held liable for the injury. And the principle of that case was followed in Bard v. New York & H. R. Co. 10 Daly, 520. Liability of reversioner. In Gandy v. Jubber, 5 Best & S. 78, 33 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 151, 10 Jur. N. S. 652, 9 L. T. N. S. 800, 12 Week. Rep. 526, the plaintiff was injured upon turning away from speaking to the tenant who stood in the doorway of her house, by falling through a grated covering over an opening adjoining the footpath of the highway. The court discusses the question of the liability of a reversioner who received the title while the tenant was in possession, but the discussion goes upon the general question of liability, and the fact that plaintiff might have been considered the tenant's guest is not noticed. The court of Queen's bench decided in favor of the plaintiff, but the exchequer chamber (5 Best & S. 485, 13 Week. Rep. 1022) recommended the plaintiff to accept a stet processus, which was accord A person who builds stores several feet from the sidewalk, and connects them with the walk by a pavement leaving an unguarded opening to admit light to the basement in front of the show window of one store, and leases the store in that condition, will be liable to a person who upon going to look at articles in the window falls into the opening and is injured. Tomle v. Hampton, 129 Ill. 383. The owner of a building, who has leased it for a public entertainment with an understanding that he shall have control of all receipts at the box of-ingly done. fice until a certain sum is realized, is liable to a person injured by the fall of the front platform upon which he was standing waiting for the doors to open. Oxford v. Leathe, 165 Mass, 254. Persons who acquire title by descent to a pier during the period of an outstanding lease are not liable for defects in the property, although they existed when the lease was made. Ahern v. Steele, A person who lets a hall for an entertainment in 115 N. Y. 203, 5 L. R. A. 449, Reversing 48 Hun, 517. |