MURPHY V. VERCOE

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2049, 29 December 1886, Page 2

MURPHY V. VERCOE

SUPREME COURT.-IN BANCO. Wednesday, December 15. (Before His Honor Mr Justico Richmond.) AIUitPHY V VfiKCOK. This was a hearing on further consideration. This was ail action for damages for in'orfering with the flow of'water of a stream. A previous. action hadf been , tried lotwedii the, tame parties for similar • damage, when the jury foil id for the de ’ fendant on tho around that the d.inago was caused ty. the act of the plaintiff hiruse f. IntlTs, a seconds action} the jury found damages The,plain tiff Js evidence showed., tli.t the defendant'*! datn backed up the water so as partly' to sub A d merge an overshot wheel of the plaintiff’s, tons reducing its power.' Mr Sinclair, for*'!] the defendant, submitted that the p'aintiff , was estopped by the judgmeut in the former case. T'uo plaintiff,must prove that he' - cleared the creek, as, otherwise, lie cannot show that tie defendant caused him j i .jur, ; Everest and Strops on Estppp-1, ] 62 ; Huu er. v. Stewart, sl, L.-J. Outr.im v Mere woo f, 3 East, 316; Mr. . Justice Richmond : It is d.fftrent damage; The Court will have to find new dimage, j Ido not think it is a cise of estoppel. , Mr Sine air: The scientific evidence must give way to visible facts. Ange! on Watercourses. Coutrel commented on . evidence at great length. i r December 16.1 , 1 Mr Sinclair continued to comment on ‘ the evidence. Mr Travers for the plain- a till', commented on tlie evidence, contend- 8 ing that the damage arose from tlie back- , 8 mg up of tho watercourse sot that the 1 plaintiff’s wheel wa9 immersed, iud had, r tu work in dead water. .*His Hiapr, re- v serT« i judgment, | s December 17, i '* 1 '.. i ri MPRPHY’ V VEECO.it J f ~ , In this caseHii Honor Mr Justice .Rich- , in on 1 hitim Aed Jfaat.his/yeidicU was for a the defendant.—-NfZ. j A in j