INVERGREY KENNELS

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 June 1930, Page 2

INVERGREY KENNELS

INJUNCTION CONSENTED TO. A case of considerable local interest was disposed of at the Supreme Court, Greymouth, to-day, when an application for an injunction to restrain a nuisance caused by barking dogs at the Invergrey Kennels, Shakespeare Street, was consented to. The plaintiffs were Horace Daniel, engine driver; Henry George Denne, company manager; William McKay, retired medical practitioner; William Roxburgh, telegraphist; and Jack Fendall Osmers, railway porter. They were represented by Mr C. S. Thomas, with him Mr A. H. Paterson. The defendants were Mrs Emma Amelia. Kettle, owner of the property, and Miss Viola Maude Kettle, owner of the dogs. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for the defence.

His Honor, Mr Justice Adams, presided. When the case was called, Mr Thomas stated: I understand from my friend Mr Hannan that his client will consent to the injunction as prayed for. Mr Hannan said that he had been authorised to consent to the injunction. Mr Justice Adams: What about the costs? Mi- Hannan: The usual costs. His Honor: The question of scale is the important question as to the costs. The case doubtless required some working up. Mr Thomas said that a. great deal of working up had been caused. Over a dozen witnesses were concerned. His Honor remarked that, on the other hand, it was not a case of firstclass importance. Pie supposed some sort of consent might have been filed. The hearing had been rendered unnecessary —but at the last moment. If it were a case where a discontinuance had been filed, special costs could be allowed.

Mr Thomas said he did not believe in pressing the question of costs, and he would leave it to His Honor. Mr Hannan adopted a similar course. His Honor said he would allow costs to be computed as on an action for £3OO. Mr Thomas raised the question of fee for second counsel. His Honor: It is a perfectly simple case so far as law is concerned. Mr Thomas disagreed, and said that quite an amount of law had been gone into as to whether the occupier of the premises could be joined as a. codefendant.

Elis Honor said that any number of people could be brought before the Court, if they were jointly concerned in the creation of a nuisance. Mr Thomas said he certainly thought there was a distinction in the present case. He quoted several authorities on the point. In addition, he pointed out, another defence was filed only the day before yesterday, and that caused extra working up. Mr Hannan said that no defence was raised in regard to joining the defendants. That had nothing to do with the question of counsel’s fee. His Honor said he was not at liberty to take into account on the question of costs the fact that second counsel had been briefed. He granted the injunction as prayed for, and allowed costs ns on an action for £ 360. Mr Thomas: I take it that includes witnesses’ expenses? His Honor replied in the affirmative and ordered that witnesses’ expenses and disbursements be fixed by the Registrar.