Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

Mokday, August 24. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston and a special jury of twelve.) The Court re-opened at 11 a. m. COOP V TffE CHBISTCHUBCH 7IXAXCE COXPASY. In this case Wm. Oop, of Little River, was plaintiff, and the Christchurch Finance Company defendants. The statement of claimTaifter setting forth that the plaintiff was the owner of certain sections of land at Little' River, where also the defendant Company held property. On the 23rd December a fire took place upon the property of the defendant Company, which spread from their property on to that occupied by one G. J. Black and that occupied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the fire, which so spread, was lit by the defendant Company's agents or servants. The fire destroyed 109 acres of cocksfoot grass, 87 acres of green bush, and 20,000 ft of cut timber, the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he had incurred expense for labor in extinguishing the fire, and that, in consequence of the bush being burnt whilst green, he was unable to lay down the land in grase. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed £1172 17s Id as damages. The statement of defence denied all the material allegations contained in the statement of claim, and also further alleged, in defence, that the defendant Company did not authorise or empower any person to light the fire which did the damage as alleged. Mr Harper, with him Mr Stringer, for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Kippenberger, for the defendants.

Mr Stringer, before opening the case, said that the defendants had made certain admissions, which reduced the question the jury had to try to simply what damages the plaintiff was entitled to Mr Frederick Banks was chosen foreman %Lthe special jury. T Mr Stringer briefly opened the case for mc plaintiff, and. Mr Harper called evidence.

A large number of witnesses were :amined, and the case of the plaintiff was >t closed when the Court adjourned until ).3O a.m. to-day.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP18910825.2.14

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7949, 25 August 1891, Page 3

Word Count
338

SUPREME COURT. Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7949, 25 August 1891, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7949, 25 August 1891, Page 3