be of no value, the expenditure of $64.45 for repairs was money thrown away.
Deducting this amount, therefore, and an allowance for depreciation in the value of the motor owing to its use up to the time of the flooding-which must OF at best be an approximation-we think that if the plaintiff recovers, in addition to the $64 already allowed, $275 towards the cost of a new motor, he will be compensated as ca.c. fully as is reasonable.
Item F: The plaintiff has been allowed, in item A, the cost of restoring the mill; in this item he claims in addition $176.97 for temporary repairs to the mill. It is by no means clear on the evidence that the $225 estimated by the witnesses Couture and Breton as the cost of restoration did not include what was done by way of temporary repairs. Mr. Justice Bernier would allow on this account $161.47. On the whole, the proper conclusion seems to be that the plaintiff has not so clearly established that this expense was outside what is covered by the item of $225 already allowed that we would be justified in reversing the decisions of the Superior Court and of the Court of King's Bench, by both of whom it was rejected.
Item G: This is the most substantial claim made-$1,450 for damages to the rev~tement wall and for levelling the ground. It is apparent from the plan that the revitement wall is some distance from the mill. The evidence shews that it was built by the city for the protection of the highway. Moreover it is at least very doubtful whether it could in any case properly be regarded as so appurtenant to, or connected with the mill that the attention of the municipality would be drawn to a claim in respect of injury to it by a notice claiming damages for injury suffered by the plaintiff " dans son moulin." In respect of this item the purpose of the requirement of the notice was probably not attained. The evidence in regard to the claim for levelling is most unsatisfactory.
The trial judge allowed $300 in et les accessoires." The judges of the Court of King's Bench unanimously disallowed this item in toto. The evidence does not enable us to say that in doing so they were clearly wrong.
The same observations apply to item H. The cellar and garden are appurtenant to the residence and in no way appurtenant to the mill.
S.C.R.