RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6791, 20 November 1883, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, November 19. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

In the following cases judgment was given by default for plaintiffs:—Andrew. Boyes v. Almao, £4 19j, for rates j M'Leod Bros. v. James Little (Mr A. Batbgate for plaintiff.-), £16 18s, amount of dishonoured cheque. William Paton v. Robert Kinnear and Andrew Imrie, claim £2 93, for work done as boiler-maker. —Mr Solomon for plaintiff, Mr J. A. D. Adams forldefendants, who paid £115s into Court.—Judgment for amount claimed, with costs.

Anne Gore (trading as Gore Bros.) v. W. Tavers, claim £2 2s 6d, for coals supplied.—Mr Stamper for plaintiff.—Case adjourned for a ■week.

J. Maxwell y. Peter Grant and the Corporation of Dunedin.—Claim £50, damages, which plaintiff alleged he had sustained through being struck on the ankle by a stone while passing the cutting now being made at the junction of Princes street and Dowling street.—Evidence had already been taken, and his Worship now gave judgment as follows:— " The view I take of this case is that blasting operations in a public thoroughfare in a populous part of the city, if the effect of a blast cannot be controlled, must necessarily be dangerous, and a natural and probable consequence ef such operations under such circumstances would be injury to persons in the neighbourhood. If the effect cannot be foreseen and controlled, then no further evidence ef negligence is necessary, for where damage is the immediate result of force, where damage would be the natural and probable consequence of misdirected force, this gives to a person damaged a right of action. If the effect of a blast can be controlled, then the fact that stone was cast by a blast into a street amorigßfc the persons passing there is evidence of neglect. As to the liability of the Corporation: Tha conditions of the contract respecting blasting go to show that the Corporation anticipated that the contractor might resort to blasting, and recognised that it would be dangerous without special care. It was of course in the power of the Corporation to have prohibited blasting, and by not doing so the Corporation take any advantage he may give in the price of the work. I think the Corporation has iuipliedly sanctioned blasting operations, and it beinp under the circumstances a dangerous operation, fixes the Corporation with liability as well as the contractor. Judgment for £30 and costs (£4 11' 6d) against both defer/; dants." ;,