EDGCOMBE V. FROUDE.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 245, 15 October 1889, Page 8

EDGCOMBE V. FROUDE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—With reference to the above case I would ask you in fairness to me, having reported the plaintiffs case, to publish briefly the points of the defence. The evidence adduced by me showed that I had drawn plaintiff's attention to the two tanks, telling him that I was running the water off them to take them down and take the;n away. He made no answer, -only saying "the water is laid on and I pay waterrates." He then left, so that it was skown clearly that I was not ordered off the ground as stated in your report. Next day I took the tanks _ off the stands and made good the spouting, and on Monday, August 12th, the tanks (but no stands or piping, then or at any other time) were carted to my place, allowing plaintiff in his account £1 Is 8d for the tanks, with the view of reducing his account as much as possible—that amount being £11 Is Bd, in settlement of which he said he would give £6 and I could keep the tanks, which offer I refused. Hence the previous action, and if judgment had been given in his favour then the last action, I feel certain, would not have been taken. So you will clearly see that because I would not accept £5 Is 8s for two old tanks with the bottoms bad, and taking them without his authority, which I maintvain was implied in not answering me, as silence gave consent, was the origin of the case. With regard to Mr Duke's evidence, Henry Clark deposed to hearing me speak to him (Duke) about the holes in the tank, and to scraping the cement (through the hole) with his pocket knife—the tank bottom being so bad that some time previous 1$ inches thick of cement had been placed in the bottom to make it watertight. John Young deposed that the tank bottom was so bad and thin that he had to cut it out altogether (sample of old bottom .and cement produced in Court) and turn the tank top to bottom. He (Y.oung) also said he did not think they were worm much.

Dr. Giles, R.M., in summing up, mentioned the fact thab under any circumstances, as was proved, the plaintiff would have been pub to the expense of either repairing or doing away with the tanks altogether, as they were dangerous. Plaintiff therefore got judgment for 10s damages and lis for cartage and labour thereon, in all, 21s ; costs, £1 6s; so that practically the judgment was in my favour. —I am, etc., R. Froude, Plumber.