Farmers Stacks and Spark-oatchers.

Otautau Standard and Wallace County Chronicle, Volume 1, Issue II, 10 May 1905, Page 3

Farmers Stacks and Spark-oatchers.

In the suit Bsck against Collie, fully reported at the tim. of hearinf, his' Worship has delivered judgmei t awarding plaintiff £27 Bs 3d damages and £7 B|s expenses. Ihe grounds on which the decision is based are chiefly the.se :— Defendant was m- charge of a dangerous machine, and it was his

duty to take all necessary precautions to prevent it doing damage to the property of another. " Negligence m law is defined to be the absence of care according to the circumstances." It is thus a varying quantity, and m the case of chah-

cutting it is evident that greater care must be exercised m a dry season and; on a windy day than m an ord i nary season and on.a. calm day. *^ T\\e case of Thomas ||||. the St. Western Colliery Co., illustrated the amount of care which is expected a from these who use Mangcrous machines or plants m proximity to an inflammable article. In that case a kind of brattice cloth, was kept without accident for a long time m proximity, t^an 'engine which' emitted sparksM This cloth was known to be inflammable and at last an accident ; haj?pe||d through its catching fire, resulting m a large number of men m the mine losing their lives. In an action for damages the defendants were held liable for negligence for not taking the precaution that they should have taken to prevent an accident; Again, m: the case of H *?rSFss V, Chrystall 'the 'Supreme C^ur^of Victoria decided that " a pefopfrHi charge olan engine close top^stftqk was liable for its destructioS^^ncl was guilty of negligence m «#§-^e erigine without a spark catcher. ': Although the plaintjft suppeclthe Yuel he kneiv ther^ jyas no^ftfjc catcher on the engine," o,d ilie; whole, seeing that defendant w-is peculiarly aware of the* risk attached m his work on the engine without a spark arrester, I am of opinion that on this occasion he failed to take the precaution a reasonable man would have taken to prevent a fire, and he is liable for the damage done. Id» tipt think that the plaintilKwilh hi., limited knowledge can be said to rhaiye agreed that these precautions weresufiicient. —Counsel for plaintiff: Mr- Stout '• fpr defendant; Mt- WUflfocalfcter;