Civil Sessions.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 173, 25 July 1887, Page 5

Civil Sessions.

Failure of the Compensation

Case.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward and a

Special Jury of 12.)

D. Arkell v. the Mayor and Ctty Council.—Claim. Ll,ooo, damages.—Mr W. J. Napier (instructed by Messrs Hughes and George) for the plaintiff; Mr Thos. Cotter, (City Solicitor) for the defendants.—At 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, His Honor began his summing up, which proved to be adverse to the plaintiff on the question of consent. Tho jury then retired to consider the following issues :—l. Did the plaintiff consent to che filling in of the street in front of his building- in Gladstone Road being done by the City Council ? 2. Was the injury to the building due to pressure of earth placed in front of it by the City Council, or to settlement of the foundations, or to both the above causes ? 3. If to both causes, which part of the building was injured by pressure, and which by settlement? 4. If any injury caused by such pressure was caused by subsidence or slip of material used in formation of the above-mentioned street, or by the placing of earth against the plaintiff's building as afore-mentioned. 5. Was the drop in tho roadway of the above street caused by slip or subsidence of the material used ? 6. If by a slip, was such slip due to any fault or negligence of the employe's of the City Council ? 7. To what extent (if any) was plaintiff's building injured by pressure above-mentioned ? ' The jury, after an absence of forty minutes, brought in a verdict in the affirmative on the iitst count, namely, that the plaintiff had consented to the filling up of the road. That being the case, Mr Cotter asked that judgment be entered up for tho defendant, but Mr Napier elected to take a nonsuit.—The foreman of the jury said that the jury considered that great laxity had been shown by the counsel in not submitting a written consent, and His Honor concurred in the remark.—Mr Cotter then consented to the plaintiff being nonsuited, and the plaintiff was therefore nonsuited with costs on the highest scale. On the application of the latter costs of counsel for each day after the first day were fixed at 15 guineas.—His Honor, in discharging the jury (who were by consent allowed a guinea a day each for their services), thanked them for the extreme good humour which they had displayed during a very protracted case, although they must have suffered great inconvenience by being detained from their business.

The Court then adjourned