CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAYS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 8071, 14 January 1892, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAYS.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

The case of Chas. D. Morris v Christchurch Tramway Company was resumed yesterday afternoon before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M. Mr Deacon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. B. JTisher for the defendant Company. Further evidence for the defence was called.

Thos. Russell, foreman of Works for the City Couucil, stated that under the City Surveyor he examined the tram lines. He heard of the accident in question on the Ist October. He weut over the line and inspected it from Black and Beattie'a crossing to Cashel street. Taken all over the Hue was pretty fair. He never reported about the line unless it was an inch above the road. On this occasion he saw nothing requiring a report. He saw no place there where the line was l£in or 2in above the road ; nor did he notice any grip in the road.

.Cross-examined —He saw Mr Chalmers, Manager of the Company, to whom he mentioned the fact of the accident, and Mr Chalmers answered that the men had been over the line. In places the road was a little below the rail, the deepest about three-quarters of an inch. Alexander Meredith, road repairer for the Company, deposed that he weut down the line with a road ehovel daily. He had been .over the line on the, day of the accident. He saw nothing of the line being above the road. Had. there been anything of the sort he would have immediately reported it. The road had been packed about a fortnight previously. He inspected the line alter the accident, and found nothing wrong with it.

Cross-examined—His section was from the Cathedral equate to Woolston. He knew of no places where the line was lin or 3in above the level of the road. Ue saw no depressions by the line. John Bourn, an employee of the Company, stated that he examined the line, and found i* t in good order. Cross-examined—He did not recollect any gutters being beside the line. Jaa. Redman, a blacksmith employed by the Company, deposed that he had seen the axle, and it would be impossible to strip the nut off by contact of the wheel with the line. He never heard of a case in which a nut had been stripped off or smashed. James Chalmers, manager of the defendant Company, recollected the day of .the accident. Hβ inspected the line himself in the locality. The first bad place was opposite Nashelski'e. The line was not more than |in above the roadway. He had seen rails above the ground, but never had he seen any part of the longitudinal sleepers above. In his opinion the line where the accident happened was in good repair. The line was repaired a fortnight before, and about six weeks after the accident. He saw no depressions in the rood beside the rails. He never promised Mr Morris that his claim should be paid. This closed the evidence for the defence.

- Mr FLher asked his Worship to find on the facts vvnelher the plaintiff had proved -that the line was not in repair to the satisfaction of the Council, or whether the 'defendant had proved that the line was in Repair to the satisfaction of the Council and Surveyor. . His Worship found in the affirmative on the second question; also that there was no evidence that the City Surveyor examined that portion of the line immediately after the accident.

, Mr Fisher held that the plaintiff had failed to. prove a breach or neglect of duty, in consequence of which he was not entitled to recover. • Ue farther contended that plaintiff was not entitled to recover, inasmuch as the line was maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. :

Mr Deacon submitted that the tramline was above the roadway, otherwise the plaintiff's trap would not hare met with the accident which happened to it, and that as there wae no contract placing the repairs of the road in the hands of the road authorities, the Tramway Company was liable. He submitted also that the road should' be in repair- to the satisfaction of the City Council at the time of tile accident, and that when the accident occurred the City Surveyor should have been taken to examine the line. This had not been done, and he held that defendants had failed to prove the assertion that the line was in repair to the Surveyor's satisfaction. His Worship said there was no doubt in hie mind that the position had been exaggerated by the plaintiff and witnesses for the plaintiff, and on the other hand the defendant's witnesses appeared to have been in error in the opposite direction. - This was quite natural in both cases. He thought, on the evidence, that it would be taken for granted that the line was from £in to fin above the road, which meant that it was £in more than Mr Chalmers admitted could cause an accident. If the Tramway Company were liable it was agreed that the amount was reasonable. He found that the state of the line caused the accident, bat there was no contributory negligence.. He was with the plaintiff in that. But he quite agreed with the defendant on the legal question. Any local body could make any cootract it chose with a Company. The local body represented the public, and if the Company kept the line in repair to the satisfaction of the local body, they thereby satisfied the public. The defendant Company had done so. Judgment would be lor defendant Company, with costs. Leave was granted Mr Deacon to appeal.