THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12884, 6 August 1906, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

COMPENSATION COURT. (Before Mr Justice Cooper and Messrs J. F. Woodhpuse and John Wright, assessors.) WKIGHT V. THR imArNAGE BOARD. The Court sat at 11 a.m. to hear the .•idjourrod case James Wright v. the Dunedin Drainage and Sewerage Board, a claim for compensation for damage alleged to have been caused by the laying of the Cargill road newer to claimant's land and the buddings thereon. Mr Hoskinc appeared for the claimant, and Dr Findlay and Mr Stephens for the respondents. Dr Findlay, at the outset, stated that respondents did not admit that the claimant waa entitled in law to any compensation. His Honor had decided the matter on a special case, but counsel submitted that on the facts claimant bad no claim in law. He desired to forraal'y make this objection in the beginning. Mr Hosking, in opening claimant's case, said that the claim was one under the Public Works Act, 1905. The claiiiKutf resided on the land affected, carrying on there his business as a butcher. The amount of the claim was £854. The damage was done hy the Drainage Board's construction of the intercepting sewer along Cargill road, resulting in a subsidence of land, the of clainrant'a building, etc. Claimant was the owner in fee of the land; it was an unencumbered estate, and it could not be said that claimant was bringing this case for the purpose of bettering an embarrassed financial estate. The land had a frontage to Cargill road, and waa bounded by Kdwin and Surrey streets. His Honor suggested that it would be well for the assessors to see the land and buildings after Mr Hosking's opening. Dr Findlay said that the only objection to that was that the Court would have their attention directed specially to those points that the other side desired him to see. His Honor said that Dr Findlay could give his side of the matter also if he opened liis case beforehand. .Mr Hosking said that this involved a disadvantage of the Compensation Court th#t seemed to demand an alteration of procedure. * His Honor said that perhaps there should he some alteration, so that the respondent should set out his case in tome way. ;• Mr Hosking said that such an arrangement would save a, great deal of expense to claimants. •Continuing his opening, Mr Hosking said that at one tun? claimant's frontage .was about xQft further out, but some tour or ave .years ago th.e Caversham Borongh tpok a strip for road widening. Thus the building at, one time stood lift or 12ft further back. During the forty-eight hours in which the Board's operations wore goiftg on jn. front of the residence in question the building cracked, the 'flq'ors went out /"of level, and there were all the of a subsidence. The sewer was excavated to withjn 6ip of the claupajit'a boundary, but jiho respondents' took' no precautions at" {sus point different from those; that they toot all along the line wHen'they were jQft away from any building, The excavation was •lift deep and 4ft wide. The claimant had noticed evidences of -slipping extending for 10ft pr so back on his side of the excavation all along. Counsel asked the Court to specially" observe the cracks in the footpath which still existed as eyidejic6 of '■. hjis' slipping, not only where therp were buildings, but also where there were none. Just before the work opposite his house was started the claimant called in an expert and the Board's foreman, win examined the house and found in it no visible signs of any subsidence. The Board's engineer (Mr Anderson) told claimjuab, aitev ceit*ia ihJrt jb*

need not worry, as the Board would see that it was all right. And bv the Drainage Act the Board's engineer ' must be deemed to act always with the authority of the Board. Certain repairs were J. lected on the assumption that the Board's action had brought about the subsidence, but it was agreed, at the respondents' request, that they,should wait six months so as to sea whether the subsidence went on. Up to November last the Board never denied, but admitted, that there was a claim against them. Counsel detailed the points that he desired the members of the Court to observe when they inspected the property. * Dr Findlay said it waa hardly necessary for him to state that be did not admit more than a small fraction of what his learned friend had said with regard to conferences between the parties or the Board's conduct generally. He would ask the Court to consider the cause of the sinking of the building (of which he showed photographs). Assuming that all subsidence had stopped—which he hoped to be able to show—he asked the Court to determine whether the building was not perfectly safe and habitable. He submitted that the things supposed to have happened during the forty-ejght hours referred to could not have happened in the way described. The floor sloped away in all directions from the centre, and had not anv particular slope in the direction of Cargijl road. There was nothing to show that the depression was duo to the Board's work. He asked the Court to contrast the ground floor with the upper floor, contending that before the latter waa built the former was off the level. The line of the wall in the first storey did not agree with that of the second storey. The Court might also look at other buildings, not necessarily in the same street, but on similar ground to this, end they would 'find that nearly all of them were out of level or out of plumb He would lead evidence to show that if respondents had done no work at all this building would have suffered as others had done. Mr Hosking submitted that that could not be evidence unless the history of every other house used as an illustration were gone into. Dr Findlay said that the evidence would go to show that a building such aa this, with such foundations and on such land, must inevitably suffer. James Wright, the claimant, then gave evidarce on the lines of Mr Hoslung's opening. After the luncheon adjournment the Court visited the property. MAGISTRATE'S COUET. ißefora C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Judgment fop plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases :•—Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Hewitt) v. Frederick Evans (Christchurch), for £4 4s (goods supplied), with 5s cost© j Guthrie, Bowron, arid Co. (Mr Moore) v. George P. Griffiths (Alexandra South), for £SB 15s (promigsorv notes), with £4 5s costs; D.T.G. (Mr Moore) y. John Rogers (Palmsrstori North), for £lO 17a 7d (promissory'"note)," with£l iOs 6d costs; Oswald Coates (lsr Adams) v. Victor Richardson (iongbuni), for £3 Is 3d (promissory note), with 10s costs; Douglas Bros. (Mr iNfoore) v. Thomas Castlehow (Christchurch), for £2 (foods \ supplied), with 10s costs j W- Wright and Cq., Limited (Messrs Bathgate arid WoQdhou>e) v. F. B, Robinson (Tinwald), for $9 ' sr? (amqunt of dishonored cheque), 6d eostej the Public Trustee (Mr Moore) v. G. Qag (Caversham), for £llss 6d (rent), with 5s costs; R. S. Tonkinson (Mr I*, D; Eurn&rd) v. Leopard Roeney (Roxburgh), for £6 18s (goods supplied), witjh, £1 3s 6d costs. In the judgment summons case Arthur Bj£Qst6 y. Jpha i&tes*.

andra South), a claim for £2 lis (good supplied), an order was made for immediate payment, in default seven/days' imprisonment, y ■ . Charles H. Tucker and Co. v. Maggie Cantwell (Christchurch) .—-Claim, £3 os, commission on sale of a certain business. Mr Bathgate for plaintiff, Mr Emslie for defendant.—Mr Bathgate said that defendant had carried on a small business in Dunedin. She went to Christchurch, leaving ber sister in charge of the business, and gave her instructions to find a puiv chaser. The sister spoke to plaintiffs' traveller, through whoso instrumentality a purchaser was found and a eale was effected. On plaintiffs sending in an account for commission defendant repudiated the claim, on the ground that her sister had had • no authority to arrange the matter.—After hearing evidence, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. {£l 12s), CITY POLICE OOtJRT, (Before C. 0. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness,—Patrick Q'Kane was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment,—A first offender, who was a prohibited person, was fined 20s, in default seven days' imprisonment.—Another first offender was fined ss, in default twenty, four hours' imprisonment. Theft,—Donald Charles MTherson alias Duncan M'Pherson alias J, Macartney pleaded guilty to having stolen one jersey, valued at 4a, the property of J, Guillemot, He was fined 20s, in default seven days. Prohibition Orders.—An order was granted against a man. on the application of his father-in-law fand another ogainat a man on the application of his son-in-law. Breaking and Entering.—Four- distinct charges of breaking and entering houses and shops in June and July, and stealing therefrom sums of money and articles the total value of which was about £25, were preferred against Charles Rayner, a youth about seventeen years of age. Associated with him in one charge was another youth —Roy Arthur Hazlewood.—Chief-detective Herbert asked for a remand. He said that Rayner was an Industrial School boy, and had made a statement admitting these offences, Accused had practically no home. —Both accused were remanded till Friday. Bail was fixed as folJowß:—Rayner, self jn £IOO and one surety of £IOO or two of £SO; Hazlewood, self in £SO and one surety of £SO or two of £2s.—Mr Goodman appeared for Hazlewood.