LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1239, 22 September 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. THE CITY FLOOD IN FEBRUARY. CLAIM OK • COUNCIL. The civil sittings of the Supremo Court were resumed yesterday morning, Mr. Justice Edwards presiding. Sarah Nicholson, wife of Peter Nicholson, labourer, of Wellington, asked for an injunction to restrain the Wellington City Corporation from continuing an alleged nuisance on her property in Mortimer T-arrncp. She also claimed ,£l5O damages for alleged injury caused to tha property. .Mr. T. N. Holmden appeared for the plaintiff and the Citv Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Sheo) for the defendant. Evidence lor plaintiff was to the effect that, in February last there wero heavy rains in Wellington, and Karepa Street (above plaintiff's property) had been flooded. This, it was alleged, was to the indifferent formation of the water-channels in the street, and to a sump becoming blocked. The water had burs;t through the street on to the plaintiff's land, carrying with it large quantities of earth arid other material. After perusing the papers, his Honour expressed the opinion that the matter might have been' settled without the expenses of a trial. Several witnesses were called by counsel for plaintiff. Mr. O'Shea, for the corporation, asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence for the plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action. The whole thing was clearly "an net of Providence." The rains at the time referred to wero the heaviest that had ever fallen in Wellington—at least, within the knowledge of man. After Mr. Holmden had Tcplied, his Honour remarked lie failed to see how plaintiff could succeed, but he would not five his decision off-hand. Judgment was therefore reserved. ALLEGED LIBEL. MAJOR AND BLUNDELL BEOS. Mention was made of the case of Albert Major, chef, y. Blundcll Bros., Lid., newspaper proprietors, a claim for .£■sol damages for" alleged libel. Mr. Kennedy appeared for the defendants to secure a fixture for hearing at the present sittings. Counsel stated that on August 15 last an order had been obtained directing that a question of law be ascertained in the form of a special case. He now asked that this order be discharged, and that the case bo set down for hearing at the present sittings. Mr. Jellicoe, plaintiff's counsel, , hail promised to attend and consent to this, but, unfortunately, he was out of town.

His Honour: Has ho filed a consent? Mr. Kennedy:. No, but he has promised to consent.

His Honour intimated that that would not <10. Tho proceedings of tho Court, he said, must be conducted in such a manner as would make it impossible for any man to say that anything improper had taken place. In answer to a question by his Honour, Mr. Kennedy stated that the case was not for hearing before a jury. His Honour: It deos not follow that auy Judge will try it without a jury. I won t try a libel case without a jury! His Honour concluded by remarking that it would be a simple matter to fix the hearing when the necessary consent had been filed. IF THEY DID DIG? WHAT EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE? David M'Kinla.v, of Sydenham, Christchurch, proceeded against Herbert Hill and Co., Ltd., nine manufacturers, Rolleston Street, Wellington, to recover the sum of JM-18 is. as damages for alleged injury caused to land by excavation. An alternative claim was for ,£IOO damages and an injunction. Mr. A. W. Blair -appeared for plaintiff M'Kinlay, and Mr. O. Beero for the defendant company. . In his,statement of claim plaintiff set .forth that on or about the year 190 D the defeiida'ht ' company 'excavated certain land in Russell Terrace adjoining his own land. They thereby caused a subsidence. Such subsidence now continues, and the safety of the plaintiff's house and .land is. endangered. The defence wa3 a denial that any excavations had been made as stated, or that there had been any subsidence, or that M'Kinlay's house and lairl had been endangered. It was further pleaded that if any damage had taken place as the result of excavation the digging had been carried out before tho defendant company was in existence. After , evidence for the plaintiff M'Kinlay had been tendered Mr. Beere applied for an adjournment until this morning. There was a probability of the case being settled .by agreement. Tho executors of Herbert Hill, deceased (former owner of the land on which the excavations had been made) were willing to build a supporting wall. Mr. Blair agreed to the adjournment. The details were to be settled by two engineers. ■

The case will be mentioned at half-past 10 o'clock this morning.

ORDER OF GASES. Fixtures were, revised yesterday, and the cases -ar<* now to be taken in the following order:— Friday, September 22. George Bolton v. Martin Joseph Lee and Amy Louisa JLee, claim for injunction and for ,£lO damages for alleged trespass. Monday, September 25. C. H. Izard v. F. W. Scott, .£4OO damages claim for alleged broach of contract and .£3O alleged to be due for rent , . ' Alfred G. East v. Hermann Lewis, claim for OCIBOO alleged to bo due as balance of commission (before a jury of twelve). Thomas Inglis r. Beatrice Amy Pinnock, a claim for cC3OS 65., alleged to be duo for work done; Tuesday, September 2G. Heathcote lieetham Williams and others v. Mirnniar, Ltd., a claim for specific performance. Undefended Divorce Cases. Wednesday, September 27. Donald Fraser v. .Winiat'a Pataka, suit for specific performance. Thursday, September 28. J. O. Galbally v. A. K. Greenfield, suit for specific performance and damages. The case of James Wilson and another v. C. J. i>. Harcourt, claim for ,£lOl 3s. Id.,'alleged to be due for work done, has been put back until tho next sitting.

On the application of Mr. A. W. Blair, for defendant, the case of C. Prit'chard v. J. J. Harley, claim for ,£l5O alleged to be due for training fees, etc., was adjourned until after the Court of Appeal sittings. On his return from Palmerston North, tho Chief Justice will mako a fixture for the hearing of tho case of Eleanor X horns y. Edith Dorothy Ellis and John. Ely Ellis, a claim for an injunction. When tho caso of the Silverstream Land Company, Ltd. v. Thomsou and Brown, claim for declaratory orders, etc., was mentioned before Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday, Mr. T. AF. Hislop stated that no fixture was necessary as the case had been settled.