STOCK DAMAGED

Evening Star, Issue 22271, 24 February 1936, Page 7

STOCK DAMAGED

ESCAPING WATER IN WAREHOUSE CLAIM FOR £204 DAMAGES Water'overflowing from premises on the second floor in Jamieson s Building, Moray Place, and causing damage and destruction to stock in premises on the floor below, led to a claim tr ±204 damages being, heard in the Magistrate’s Curt to-day. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., heard the case, which, was brought about by Rutherford s, Ltd., who claimed to recover from ,W . Harris and Son Ltd. the above sum as a result of the defendants permitting water to overflow from their premisesoccupied on .the second floor of the building into the premises occupied by the plaintiff on the first floor of the building whereby portion of the plaintiff’s stock was destroyed or damaged. Mr R C. Rutherford, who appeared for theplaintiff, said that the action was one for damages arising from a nuisance—the overflowing of water. Ihe facts were that on Monday, December 9 1935, it was discovered that water had escaped from the defendant's premises upstairs to the plaintiff s below. An investigation showed that at that time water was running m a basin in a corner of tthe upstairs premises. It would be shown that the washer was such that the tap could not be turned off. . ‘ . ~ ■ Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for the defendants. In evidence William M Caig, an ? c ‘ countant, said that the company which employed him occupied the ground floor of Jamieson’s building. On the .morning of December 9 he found a damp spot on .the floor , and water coming through the ceiling. He went upstairs and found evidence of water having overflowed on to Harris and son s floor. There was a gentle flow from the tap. Witness called the storekeeper to look at the dampness, and the latter admitted that the washer was not in a condition to allow of the tap being properly turned off. ...... To Mr Anderson, witness said that he thought that Harris’s were responsible for a pipe that crossed^ a landing outside their premises. Witness obtained the services of ,a plumber to attend to the nuisance, and his principal paid the entire cost. He knew that Harris’s, had not paid anything. There was no blockage of any kind in the pipe when he saw it. The plumber told witness that the pipes were dirty. Witness felt justified in paying for a complete overhaul of the pipe system in the building. He had warned Rutherfords not to place tea leaves in the basin. They had been throwing them out of a window into a right-of-John William Charles Bolton, a plumber, said that he inspected the water system in the building, and in Harris’s premises he found a tap oyer a basin with a trickle of water running from it. The washer was not m a good condition. When he examined the elbow pipe under the basin he found it was blocked. A trickle of water would get away through the pipe, but it the tap were turned half on the flow would not escape. Alfred James Rutherford, managing director of the plaintiff company, said that softgoocls were stored in his warehouse. When ho arrived at the warehouse on the morning of December 9 he found some of the staff mopping up water from the floor. He instructed that all dry goods should be,removed. He went upstairs to Harris’s premises, and an employee showed him the tap that was running. The floor was saturated, and a board had been lifted from the floor. After the damaged goods had been valued- and examined they were sold for a sum which nas £ls in excess of the value witness and M‘Calg estimated them at. Leslie Gordon Lilly, manager of a silk merchant’s business, gave details of the value he placed on the damaged stock, (Proceeding.)