Clifford v. Mason

• Decision Date: 01 April 1883
• Citation: 6 Colo. 603
• Parties: CLIFFORD v. MASON.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

6 Colo. 603

CLIFFORD v. MASON.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April, 1883

Error to District Court of Arapahoe County.

Mr GEORGE W. MILLER, Mr. JOHN A. CLOUGH, JR., and Mr. R. A LONG, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J P. BROCKWAY, for defendant in error.

BECK C. J.

We discover no error in the proceedings of the district court that would warrant us in reversing the judgment.

The testimony shows that the wrongful acts complained of, by which the tenement and property of the plaintiff Mason were damaged and he thrown out of possession of his leased premises, were done under the orders of the defendant Clifford. We think the pleadings and testimony also show the entry and withholding of the premises by Clifford substantially as alleged in the complaint.

Defendant owns the lot adjoining the premises of the plaintiff, and had it excavated under his personal supervision in such a manner as to undermine and overturn the shooting gallery of the plaintiff into the excavation.

It appears that the plaintiff was thrown out of possession of his parcel of ground on which his gallery stood, and of which he had a two years' lease, and that a large building was erected thereon by the defendant, of which the defendant had possession at the time of the trial.

The damages suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of the wrongful acts of the defendant were the loss of his location for business, the damage done his building and fixtures, and the loss of time occasioned in finding another suitable location.

The testimony shows that he had worked up a business which netted him $150 per month, and that his rent was $25 per month. He was thrown out of business for two months, during which time he was seeking another location, and when he finally secured one, it was not as favorable for his business, while his rent was much greater than at the other location.

Defendant introduced no evidence in his behalf upon the trial. The jury were correctly instructed as to the law, and their finding was, 'that the defendant unlawfully, wilfully and forcibly entered into and upon the premises described in the plaintiff's complaint, and wrongfully and maliciously detained the same from the possession of the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was in the actual and peaceable possession of the same, as alleged in said complaint.'

They assessed the plaintiff's damages at the sum of $263 which the court trebled in the judgment as...