DAMAGED GOODS.

Evening Star, Issue 12943, 5 May 1908, Page 3

DAMAGED GOODS.

A FLOODED CELLAR. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.. the case of Arthur Barnett v. the Dunedin City Corporation was begun. Plaintiff’s claim is for £24 for damage done to goods through defendant's negligence. Corporation employees, in repairing the street channel in front of plaintiff’s outfitter’s shop, ICO George street, having dammed the gutter without making provision to prevent the accumulated water escaping into plaintiff’s cellar. Mr J. (’. Stephens appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor for defendant. Mr Stephen outlined the facts briefly. He said that during the night of December 18 last there was a fpll of rain, and water collected in the dam, and was forced through the pavement into plaintiffs cellar, when it damaged his goods. On December 21 his firm wrote to the town clerk suggesting that someone should be appointed on behalf of the Corporation to view the damaged stock, as it was rapidly deteriorating, and Mr Barnett would be forced to dispose of it without further delay. The answer was 3 denial of anv liability. Arthur Barnett, outfitter, stated that .the dam was directly in front of his shop. It rained steadily all night, and in the morning the dam was comparatively full. The front part of the cellar was flooded, and a quantity of goods damaged. He rang up the town clerk, who said that the matter concerned the Drainage Board. Mr Butcher, of the Drainage Board, came down at once, but immediately disclaimed that body’s connection with' the work. Then Mr M’Curdie and an inspector, both City Corporation servants, came down and inspected the dam, the pavement, and the cellar. His cellar had never previously been flooded except on one occasion, about four or five years ago, when a pipe conveying drainage burst, and the water flowed through the door. To Mr MacGregor: Under certain circumstances the wall of his cellar was evidently not watertight. He sold the goods very quickly when he advertised them. He admitted being regarded as a very astute advertiser, but declined to say whether the sale had benefited his business in a general way.

Evidence as to the damage done was given by Mr G. A. Findlay, who inspected the goods at Mr Barnett’s request. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until Thursday.