DAMAGE TO CABLE

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 September 1929, Page 8

DAMAGE TO CABLE

UNUSUAL REEFTON CASE.

(Our Own Correspondent).

REEFTON, September 28. What was described, as a most unusual case, and possibly the first or its kind in New Zealand, was heard by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at the Reetton Court yesterday. The King proceeded against the Chairman of the Inangahua County Council and tne. people of the Inangahua County, claiming £9/11/1 for damage done to a telephone cable. Mr 1. A. Ingham (Greymouth) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. Phillips for the defendants. In outlining the case, Mr Kitchingham stated that the alleged o fence took place in December 1927, by a workman penetrating a telephone cable casing in Broadway, Reefton. This was a most unusual case maybe the first of its kind in New Zealand. A crowbar had been driven to carry a lamp to protect the people from crossing or using a footpath that was being repaired on the south side ot Broadway, Reefton. Mr Kitchingliam quoted various legal authorities and, produced a blue print plan provided by the Telegraph Department. The workman engaged should have been fully aware of the location of the cable lines. Thomas Russell, telegraph linesman giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. stated he took steps to locate a fault in the telephone lines and finally did so at a point opposite Osborne’s garage. The.cable was lead covered and contained wires as per sample of cable produced in Court. He found a 1? de directly over the cable and found the lead covering had been punctured. The adjoining footpath had been fenced off. The cable repair man came across from Christchurch, and worked until after midnight to carry out repairs. The cost of the labour and material was £9/11/1. To Mr Phillips: It was a. puncture by a sharp instrument. The cable was buried 18 inches in the ground. To the Magistrate: It took him about one hour to locate the trouble in the first instance. He had no doubt as to how the damage was done, and put it down to a crowbar being driven in the ground by one of the workman engaged in repairing the footpath. Walter F. Brett, County Engineer, identified the plan produced as supplied to the County Council in 1925. Work was being done to repair the footpath at the point near where the cable was injured. He did not inspect the work very closely at the time it was being done, and had not heard of the trouble until the complaint was made.

To Mr Phillips: The first he heard of the trouble was when the account was sent forward by the Telegraph Department. The work engaged in was necessary. He would not contradict Mr Russell’s statement. He remembered the letter being sent on to the Council and the Council denied liability. The barrier had been put up to protect the public and it was only by chance that the cable was met with at the point where it was damaged. To Mr Kitchingham: He did not warn the employees of the exact location of the cable when the work was started.

Joseph Edward Panckhurst stated that, he was engaged by the Tnangahua County Council to lay a footpath near Osbourne’s garage. A man named Sara was also employed there as a workman by the Council. A barrier was erected some three feet away from the kerbing. He was not employed there when the fault in the telephone was discovered by Mr Russell. The County employee erected the burlier, and witness saw the uprights put in to carry the wire netting.

Mr Phillips submitted that no negligence was shown by the Council employees, and the occurrence was just an extraordinary accident. Legal authorities were quoted to show that the County Was not liable under Section 14 of the Counties Acf, 1927, as the action was not commenced within six months of the occurrence.

Mr Kitchingham quoted legal authorities in support of the action. Judgement was reserved until the next sitting of the Court.