DAMAGED BY WATER

Evening Star, Issue 22272, 25 February 1936, Page 6

DAMAGED BY WATER

WAREHOUSE STOCK AFFECTED DECISION RESERVED IN COURT CLAIM Further evidence and legal argument were heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the ease in which Rutherfords Ltd. proceeded against IV. Harris and Son Ltd. to recover £204, the amount of damages claimed as a result of water overflowing from the defendant’s premises to the plaintiff’s premises in the same building. The magistrate reserved his decision. Geoffrey Mitchell Barnett gave evidence regarding the value of the damaged stock. Mr E. J. Anderson, who appeared for the defendants, said that the duty rested on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that there had been negligence in bringing about the escape or water. He suggested that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proving that negligence. The evidence of Bolton indicated that it was an unforeseen and fortuitious circumstance which caused the filling up of the pipe. The magistrate drew attention to the fact that the tap would not turn off completely and there was a continual escape of water. Mr Anderson said that it was to provide for this that a waste pipe and overflow were provided. The fact that a tap was drawing did not imply negligence’ so long as there was a waste pipe and overflow. The Magistrate said he would not deal with the nonsuit point without hearing the other evidence. The first witness for the defence was George Buckley, manager of the defendant company, who said that when he saw the tap it was trickling, but there was not a steady flow. Thomas John Howe, storeman for the defendant company, said that he would have heard the tap had it been running full on when he left the building on Saturday. He was the first to enter the warehouse on Monday morning, and he did not hear water overflowing from the basin. When he saw the basin there was no water in it, the plug was on the ledge and the tap was just trickling as usual. There was no water on the floor, but over an area of about four feet square it was damp. Asked by the magistrate how he accounted for the basin overflowing, witness said he took it that the pipe must have been blocked. Evidence was also given by James Francis Rennick, Oscar Edward White, William Alexander Jenkins, Arthur Norman Lane, George Dunlop Hay, Alexander Findlater Cheyne, and Isabel Alexandra Mathieson. After counsel had addressed the court the magistrate said he would take time to consider the matter.