CLAIM AGAINST CITY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 58, 2 December 1930, Page 7

CLAIM AGAINST CITY

Sewage in Basement

CUBA STREET PREMISES

Claiming a total of £290 19s 9d damages from the Wellington City Council,

Davis Bros., auctioneers, alleged various . items of negligence concerned with the choking up of a sewer in Lower Cuba Street on August 6 last year and subsequent flooding of their basement, in the Supreme Court yesterday, all of which was denied by the corporation. The case was heard by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and it will be continued this morning. In the statement of claim it was set out that the plaintiffs occupied the ground floor and basement of 57-59 Lower Cuba Street, part of which premises were used for storage purposes. On August 6, 1929, the basement had been flooded from the corporation's sewer running under Cuba Street, and, it was alleged, extensive damage had been done ’to furniture and other goods stored in the basement, while additional damage had been done to stocks through removal and storage. .

When the sewage was being drained off it was necessary to take up the floor of the basement in order to clear it, and this, it was claimed, ■ had entailed a disorganisation of business —a direct result of the flooding. Further disor-

ganisation, it was alleged, had taken place as a result of the corporation’s employees pumping water and sewage out, and taking up and replacing the basement floor. Negligence Alleged. Under four headings the plaintiffs claimed the total of £290. The fl.'st claim alleged that the flooding had been aue to the sewer becoming choked, with the ’result that the sewage became dammed up and forced an outlet into the plaintiff’s premises. The ■second alleged that the sewer constituted a nuisance by an alleged obstruction causing the sewage to be diverted into the plaintiff’s premises, thereby causing the damage and disorganisation of business mentioned. Thirdly, it was alleged that the choking of the sewer was due to negligence on the corporation’s part, in failing to keep the sewer properly cleaned, or by failing to keep it under proper repair. It was also alleged that the corporation was negligent in constructing a large concrete block above the sewer, which block had sunk and 'had damaged the sewer. >. ' Corporation’s Defence. 1

The corporation’s statement of defence consisted chiefly of denials of the various allegations made by the plaintiffs. It was denied that the plaintiff's basement' had been flooded, though it was admitted that some sewage had escaped from the corporation’s public drain in Cuba Street and had entered the basement. Damage to stock was also denied, but, it was admitted that the basement floor had been taken up, and it was alsqidenied that the plaintiffs’ business had been disorganised. Further, it was' denied that the flooding and escape of sewage had been due to "the main sewer being choked. After

various other denials of allegations contained in the statement of claim the corporation set out as a part of its defence that as the sewer was a public work a claim for compensation such as the present one could be made only within twelve months of the completion of the work.

All the evidence had been heard late yesterday afternoon, but Mr. Wilson, for the plaintiffs, asked permission to call certain evidence in rebuttal of a theory advanced by the corporation that this break, among others, had been caused by the 1929 earthquake. When the last witness for the plaintiffs had been heard Mr. O’Shea moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the corporation’s officers, and after some discussion his Honour said _he would provisionally overrule the application so that he could hear all the evidence. The witnesses for the defendant were •then heard, and the case was adjourned till this morning.