CLAIM AGAINST TRAMWAY BOARD.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12932, 11 October 1907, Page 4

CLAIM AGAINST TRAMWAY BOARD.

1 PLAINTIFF AWARDED £25 DAMAGES. Tho well in Cathedral squaxo from which the Tramway Board draw their supply of water lor the steam-engines wae the cause of litigation betwoen Harry Fisher and ilmt body at the Magistrate* Court yesterday.. Mr Hunt, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that his client claimed £25 for damages. In Catfhcdral squefe there was c round iron trap-door which was put down there to cover a well from which the Tramway Board's engines are watered. It had been used for many yeans, and Woe in a defective state, some ecven inches having been broken in order to allow the hose to bo connected with tho well. Plaintiff wee walking across from Dalgoty's Buildings on January 7tfh last, and got his foot caught in the hole, with the result that ho was thrown to the ground, rendered unconscious, and sustained injuries to his back which caused him to be confined to hie bed for three weeks. Ho wae unable to continue hh employment for three months. Hβ contended that the Board were responsible for any accidents •rising through the defec+ivenoes of the covering of the well. .'•■■ ",■ •" Harry Fiaher gave* evidence etmikr to counsel's statement " -JBe tt«e .rendered unconscious by the fail and conveyed to hie home, wibero he was attended by Dr. .Sandstein. Ho had strained fiis back come time previously to tho lccidont, and had nearly been "flattened out" by a «usb falling an him, but he had completely roooveTed when tho accident occurred in Cathedral square in January. Plaintiff's wife stated that defendant wis aw«y from his employment for three months and three weeke f during which time she. had to work in order to support tho household. Albert Metcalfe, who was with plaintiff when the accident happened, said that plaintiff was unooenecioue when picked up after tho fall. Mr Russell, who defended tho case on behalf of the Tramway Board, eaid that negligence on tho part ci the Board had not been proved. The eumip had boon down for many years, and had been placed there legally for -water for tho engines. It had not proved a source of danger to anyone els©. The plaintiff, by using reasonable care and skill, could have avoided tho danger. It was simply sheer negligence on his part in walking over the well, as there was no reason why he ehould have chosen that track. Counsel cited English decisions on tho question of negligence, which, went to show that tho Board could not bo hold responsible. John Wood, traffic superintendent, eaid that tho well had been in its present ■position for two years, but had been in tho Square for twenty years. Ho had hover heard of anyono tripping over it before. Ho could not possibly sco how any person could got his foot caught unless ho deliberately pushed his foot into tho Jjolo. Everybody could see tho top of tho well. Repairs had not been effected wince the accident on account of this case: tho hinge bolt on tho lid had worked loose. Tho lid had been purposely cut in order to allow tho hceo to bo put into the well.

Tho Magistrate (Mr Bishop) said lie was against Mr Russell on nil tho points, and gavo judgmpiit for plaintiff for tho fuil amount with cos(g.