The plaintiff's damages as now formulated are particularized as follows:
Cost of restoring the mill, $225.
B. Damages to flume, $300.
C. Loss of time,
D. Damages to electric motor, $64.65.
c.J.c.
E. Cost of new motor, $400.
F. Temporary repairs to mill, $176.97.
G. Damages to revitement wall and for levelling ground, $1,450.
H. Damages to cellar and garden, $100.
Total, $2,816.42.
Items A, B, C and D were allowed by the Court of King's Bench, with the exception of forty-five cents in item D, which may obviously be regarded as falling within the maxim " de minimis." These four items, therefore, need not be further inquired into. It may be remarked, in respect of item B, that the Superior Court allowed only $200. The evidence, however, appears to warrant the increase made by the Court of King's Bench.
Item E: The ground on which this claim was disallowed was that the repairs covered by item D, when made, put the motor in good running order, and that the fact that it had really been destroyed and made useless by the flooding only developed after the action was brought. With great respect, that does not seem to be a proper ground for disallowing the item. If, in fact, the flooding so completely destroyed the motor that it could not be repaired and made fit for permanent use without an expenditure of $400, which would be the cost of a new motor, the cause of action for that damage arose at the time of the flooding, although its existence only became apparent subsequently. The decision of this court in Finlay v. Howard (1), establishes that such damages are recoverable. The evidence of the witness Lefebvre makes it clear that this expense will be necessary.
On the other hand, however, although the motor which the plaintiff had was comparatively new-the evidence does not disclose how long it had been in actual use-it was in fact worth something less than a new motor would be. Moreover, as the motor proved to