SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9816, 27 August 1897, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO.

Thursday, August 26,

Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) His Honour sat in banco at 11 a.m. WHITE V MINISTER OF RAILWAYS.

This was a claim under the Public Works Act for damage done to the claimant's land by a grass fire alleged to have been caused by the railway engine, and a case was now stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court on a point of law, before the matter came before the Compensation Court.

The case slated that the claimant was a sheep fai-mer, carrying on business at ".The Peaks," North Canterbury. On the 26th January, 1897, the grass growing upon the land of the claimant was destroyed by fire. The claimant alleged that the fire was caused by fire which he alleged was dropped by, or otherwise suffered to escape from, the engine of the afternoon train horn Culverden to Christchurch, which, after burning the dry grass on the rail way, spread over the land of the claimantand destroyed thegrass. The railway was constructed, and the engine and train were run by the respondent und«r the authority of the Public Works Acts, 1882 and 1894. The claimant claimed £400 as damages. The respondent denied that the grass tire wag caused by fire dropped by or otherwise suffered to escape from the engine, or that the tire was caused by any act or omission done or suffered by him or those for whom he was responsible in connection with the working of the railway. The respondent contended that even if it were proved that the fire which didany injury to the claimant's land were caused in the manner alleged by the claimant or otherwise, it was not the subject of a claim for compensation under the Public Works Act, 1894, and that if such injury and damage can be made the subject of a claim for compensation under the said Act, the respondent is not responsible to the claimant for the damage sustained by him by reason of suoh fire, unless it also be proved that the respondent or his servants was or were guilty of negligence in the equipment or working of the said railway. The questions for the opinion of the CourG were:—(l) Has the Compensation Court, created under and in pursuance of the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1894, jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters in dispute between the claimant and respondent hereinbefore meationed. (2) If such jurisdiction does exist, is the claimant bound to prove negligence in the equipment, management and working of the said railway, in order to enable the Compensation Court to award him compensa' tion

Mr Fisher for the claimant, Mr Stringer for the respondent. The argument wag purely on matters of law.

After argument his Honour took time to consider.