DISPUTE OVER WALL

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 4, 5 July 1928, Page 15

DISPUTE OVER WALL

♦ : NORTHLAND TUNNEL CASE PROSPECT OF SETTLEMENT The hearing of tho case in which the Wellington City Corporation, on behalf of tho Fletcher Construction Company, sought leave to go on to the property of lluvold Ernest Guise to complete a retaining wall in connection with the work of tho Northland tunnel was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Sim. Evidence was given by Guise, who said that at no time had lie given tho contractors permission to go on to his land. lie agreed to let a shed and engine only, to bo erected. Mr. J. O'Shea, City Solicitor, submitted that from the timo Guise ratified the action of his .wife he understood what was being done, and anything that had been dono subsequently had not increased inconvenience in any way. , The Corporation claimed that there was right to a license to erect a shed and plant, and to use the plant. At tho time Guise ratified the agreement with Fletcher, Guise knew everything ' that was being done and everything that was intended to be done. Mr. O'Shea submitted that tho plaintiff was entitled to damages, if he could not got an injunction or an order for specific performance. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb, who appeared for Guise, said that at the commencement of the negotiations the company knew the extent of tho inconvenience. The privilege of going on to the land was worth £1200. Guise could not have been aware of tho extent of tho inconvenience. Counsel said that no arrangement was made in regard to permission to go on to the lfind, and there appeared to have been a misunderstanding. Guise's permission was for something very' different from what was now claimed. - His Honour: "It turned out to bo more burdensome to Guise than he anticipated." His Honour said that counsel had not called'experts to show that the work could have been carried out in any other way. Mr. Mazengarb: '' The work as carried out was something moro than was explained." His Honour: "Thoy put a number of things up, and you did not object." After counsel addressed : the Court, his Honour' saia./he thought the plaintiff was entitled to succeed, and that the defendant „ had granted a license which he could not revoke. Considerable hardship ; had-.been..-inflicted on the Guises,, and' ho* suggested that the Corporation and the, contractors should make some concession. : Mr. O'Shea said.that on behalf of the .Fletcher Company ho.- would" offer to pay eight .weeks' board (ifi'GO) for, tho Guises, and Mr. Fletcher would waive damages. ■ , ■ Eventually his Honour adjourned the ease till Saturday ■njorning,. stating that if a settlement ■ was not arrived at he would give a, decision.; •