MR SPERREY'S COMPOSITIONM CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4870, 26 September 1877, Page 4

MR SPERREY'S COMPOSITION M CASE.

; The question of: 'allowing the public-I©/ read, the.opinions given by the Corporaiiojiy solicitors, Mr; George Cook and; Mr ;B: Gi/ Haggitt, waseonsidcredbythe City Councilr yesterday, and decided in-i the affirmative;/ The learned courisel~acknowledged the lia-;; bUity of the CouucU, and pointed ,that:thea only question at issue was-the.assessment off daina-es. / The following is Mr Haggitt's '.-. opinion:—. . .''."•.:'. gi.g. ./.' g .-. :PPP.i

/ 1 am of opinion that perhaps, under section^ sixty of Otagb:Municipal: Corporations Or-; dinance, 1865, and certainly under section three"'* hundred and sixty-nine of Municioal Corporations Act, 1867, a duty is cast* upon the Corporation to take' proper precautions, by fencing, &c, to guard against accidents during the construction or repair of streets, and to '.- light works in progress at night, so as to prevent accidents. ','-.■.- ':■- r .; y:.''-:-

-The neglect- of. this duty will subject tfie"' Corporation to an action at the suit of any' peraon injured: by their negligence,:aud it would, be no answer to such. an action thatthe Cor- ' poration -had entrusted to a., contractor Pthag performance of a 'duty which; the Statute Kasy imposed upon them; for a person employing a*■ contractor to perform a,duty cast upon himself is responsible for the contractor's negligence in " performing it.— Pickard :v. Smith, r 10, . G.B.P "iKS., 470; Gray v.. Ptdlen, 32, LJ. (Q. 8.)! 169; Gray v. PulUn, 34,L.J.:-"'(Q;]3:'),26s;'•"-Tarry v. Ashton, L.R. (Q.B. Div.), 1., p. 314; ' and see Bower v. Peak, L.Rv (Q.B- Div.)/L, : p. 321; at pages 327 and' 3aS, where the above' cases are cited with approval by Cockburn, ;

lam of opinion, therefore, that the Corporation would be held liable to Mr Sperrey if it/ could be shown that the injuries sustained by '' him happened through neglect to fence the cutting, or to.properly light the works. ■ -■-.- ■-".- IP Mr Sperrey could, if he so pleased, maintain; an action against the contractor, his negligence being the immediate cause of the injury '"--'He'".'' may sue either the Corporation-or the contractor.. :..'.':•;•■-: •: -.-.- •■■•gg.

If Mr Sperrey sues the Corporation, and recovers damages against them, they will have their remedy over against the contractor for the breach of his' agreement—cla,uses 23 and ■Sic, General Conditions.

B. C. Haggitt.

September Sth,lS77.

:Flokilise !—For we Teeth and Breath.—A iew.P' drops of .tha hqud- Floriline" sprinkled on a wet tooth brush; prod..ccs a pleasant lather, which/thoroughly cleanses' the teeth from all rarasitss 6r: ; linpurmes, hardens the gums, prevents tartar, stops - *y>> rl,T es totheleeth a peculiar pearly whitened - and a delightful fragrance to the 'br<£th. It remoreS ' a i unpieosant. odour arising: from decayed teeth, or , tobacco smoke. "Tha Fragrant-FiorUine" beintr'.-.-composed iv part of honey aud sweet herbs, : s del& cious to the taste, aad the greatest: toilet discovery ot'-* tha age. Brice 2a Od, of all Chemists and Perfiunere, Prepared by Hkxrt C, Gallup, 493 OxfDrd street V Loudon.—[Advt.] .. ..- '• ■■■■■■ -■-;■;.