Supreme Court.—In Banco.

Manawatu Herald, 23 May 1893, Page 2

Supreme Court.— ln Banco.

Thursday, 18th May. (Before the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond.) Donald Grant v. the queen. This was a special case stated by consent of the parties to determine the liability of the Crown for certain alleged acts of trespass and negligence by the Crown in respect of which the plaintiff is bringing a suit to recover £510 damages. The plaintiff is owner of certain sections of land on the Eairanga Block, eight miles from Palmerston North. In November, 1890, the Executive Government is alleged to have entered upon his land* and excavated and constructed along the western boundary line a canal or water course, throwing back on his section to a distance of three feet along the course of the canal the excavated soil, which formed an embankment impeding the discharge of the. surface water from his land. He also alleges that the Government suffered this water course to remain un- | fenced, whereby it became dangerous to the sheep and cattle depastured on his land ; and that they also neglected to keep it cleansed and open. In consequence of these acts and this neglect, and partly owing also to the insufficient depth and capacity of the drain, he says, that the dammed-up water flooded his land. The questions submitted for the determination of the Court were :-— (1) Whether the' drainage works complained of were construpted by the Government on behalf of the Crown or as agents of the Manawatu Road Board ; (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the Crown damages in respect of the alleged trespass; and (8) whether the Sovereign is liable for the acts and omissions of the Executive Government. It appears that the Eairanga Block was purchased in 1880 under the Land Act of 1877 for settlement purposes, but the Government after* wards found it necessary to construct roads and drains in order to render the land fit for settlement. Then they cut it up and sold it by auc • tion on the deferred payment system. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Gully for the Queen. Mr Jellicoe, in opening the case, contended that a petition of right will lie at common law and, if not, then that the plaintiff had brought his case within the provisions of the Crown Suits Act, 1881, which Acts extends the rights of the subject as against the Crown, and fairly comprises damages in actions of tort* He argued that |h«

plaintiff claimed in respect of a wrong done by authority of the Executive Government in connection with public work, as defined by the Crown Suits Act ; that the work -was done out of moneys appropriated by the General Assembly, and that the revenue derived from the block consisted of the profit which the Government made on the re-sale of the land in sections, and the revenue derived from the existing land tax. \ At the conclusion of Mr Jellicoe's argument the Court adjourned, until , (Tuesday next in order to enable their Honors to look into the authorities which the learned gentleman had cited. The Chief Justice intimated that when the Court resumed they would state whether they required to hear Mr Gully .— -N.Z.'Tmom. «