SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 4, 6 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

[Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.] h'lean v. .m'mubbin. This action was brought to a close at 9.30 last night, when the jury found, on all the issues, a verdiot for plaintiff. THIS DAY. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) WILLIAMS V. lI'DOWBIiL, AND FLIMMBB V. M'DOWELL, GLEGG, AND MITCHELL. The facts in these two cases being the same, it was decided to take both together. In Williams v. M'Dowell, Mr. Allan, and with him Mr. Edwards, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers for the defendant. In the other case, Mr. Allan, and with him Mr. Brandon, juri., appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Travers for the defendant M'Dowell, and Mr. Buckley for Hugh Glegg and Wm. Mitchell. Mr. Williams sued in the first case as tenant, and Mr. Plimmer in the second case as reversioner. '1 he following jury was empanelled :—: — Alex M'Donald, F. J. Kearsey, A. V. Knapp, Jas. Martin, Jas. Blanford, Goo. Fairchild, Joseph Webber, Joseph Williams, Robert Yates, Geo. Mann, Wm. Connor, Daniel West. It was, after some discussion, decided that the whole jury should view the site of hind, the subject of the action. The basis of action, as set forth in the declaration, was to the following effect : — Mr. Plimmer was the owner of a piece of land, with a dwelling-house and other buildings thereon, at the back of Willis-street, near M'Dowell's premises, before the time the latter committed the alleged grievances, and this land v together with the dwellinghouße, was let to Mr. Henry Williams, who carried on the bnsinoss of board-inghouse-keeper. The defendant is alleged by Williams to have removed the adjacent land, without leaving sufficient support, so that the buildings were impaired and rendered unfit for occupation. His lodgers left and he could not get others, and the reputation of his house was injured. On these grounds he claimed the sum of .£3OO damages. Mr. Plimmer sued as reversioner, and included the contractors in (the suit. The allegations as to damage of property were similar to those of Mr. Williams, but the amount sought to be recovered was £3000, made up as follows: — £2000 for damage to land; £900 for damage to honse and buildings, and £100 for lease of land. In both cases the pleaa of defendants denied all the material allegations set forth in the declarations. Mr. Gordon Allan opened the case for plaintiffs in both actions. There would, he said, be evidence to prove the nature of the damage in each case, but, as regards the damage itself, the evidence would be the same. The issues to be set before the jury were as follows :— ln Williams v. M'Dowell— (l) Was the plaintiff at the time of the committing of the alleged grievances in the declaration lawftdtaiposaessed of the parcel of land, with toe buildings thereon, in the declaration described for the interest therein alleged ; and were such hinds and buildings occupied and used by the plaintiff as in the declaration alleged ? (2) Was the plaintiff at the time aforesaid entitled to have the said land with the houses, buildings, and erections thereon, supported as in the declaration alleged? (3) Did the defendant at the time aforesaid wrongfully dig and remove the land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff, and did he do so without leaving proper and sufficient support for the land, house, and buildings of the plaintiff ? (4) Did the land of the plaintiff by reason thereof sink and give way ? (5) Is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant any, and if any, what damages by reason of the matters in the declaration mentioned. In Plimmer v. M'Dowell :— (1) Was the land of plaintiff at the time of committing the grievances in the declaration mentioned supported by the land and soil adjacent thereto as in the declaration alleged? (2) Was the plaintiff entitled to have the land, dwellinghouse, buildings, and fences supported by the land adjacent thereto? (3) Did the defendants by themselves, their agents, workmen, and other persons employed on their behalf, wrongfully and negligently dig and remove the land and soil adjacent to the land, dwelling-house, building*, and fences of the plaintiff, aa in the declaration mentioned, without leaving proper and sufficient support for the said hind, dwelling - house, buildings, and fences ? (4) Did the said land, dwelling - house, buildings and fences, in consequence of such negligent digging and removing of the land, sink, swag, and give way, and were they serionsly and permanently injured? (5) Did the said dwelling-house, in consequence of such digging, become weakened and unfit for occupation, and were the occupants obliged to leave? (6) Was the reversionary interest of plaintiff in the land and buildings permanently deteriorated in value, as in the declaration alleged. (7) Did plaintiff lose the renta and profits from the said land and bnilding3? (8) Were the injuries to the land and buildings of plaintiff occasioned by the neglect of plaintiff ? (9) To what damages, if any. iiLpLuntiff entitled P Evidence waa still being taken as we went to proas.