COMPENSATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13665, 7 August 1906, Page 8

COMPENSATION COURT.

■WRIGHT v. DRAINAGE BOARD, (Before Mr Justice Cooper and two Assessors.) The Compensation Court sot yesterday morning to consider a c'aira by James Wright against the Dunedin Drainage and Sewerage •Board in respect of damage to a pieco of i. ? n buildings thereon, caused bv tile subsidence of the land owing to oxca.v.l- - 15J, rk by t,h ® ,TOanl in CargiU road. Tho claim was for £854. which was made up as follows: — Subsidence of land and damage to brick building. £500; damage to wooden building, £12; inability to let same at full value, £10; damage to wooden buildi"g «oriler of Cargri! road and Surrev sireet, £10, providing shop during repair. £100; providing dwelling-house during repair, £-20; removal of fittings, plaint, and funiiture to and fro, £10; loss and inconvenience in business, £150; and expenses to which the claimant lias teen put, £36. The assessors were Mr J. F. Woodhonse (for the claimant) and Hr John Wright (for the respondents), Mr J. H. Hosking appeared for the claimant, James Wright, butcher, Gargill road, Oaver-sha-m, and Dr Findlay (of Wellington), with Mr J. C. Stephens, for the respondents. J>r Findlav requested his Honor to note, as a preliminary objection, that the respondents did not adroit that the claimant was entitled in law to any compensation. His Honor noted the objection. Mr Hosking said the claim was for injuriously affecting -the claimant's laud in Oargill road. The wort) complained of consisted of the excavation of the soil of the road below its surface at a short distance from the frontage line of tho pieco of land, for 'the purpose of constructing, m the excavation part, quo of the main sewers which the board had been constructing as part of its drainago system. The excavation took plaoe about the 14th of February, 1905, and within 48 hours the buildings were cracked, the floors were not level, the walls were out of position, and there were all the indications that followed from a. subsidence. This coincidence in itself would bo sufficient to show that it wns duo to the excavations that the damage occurred. His Honor asked if the excavation was on the footpath. Mi Hosking repKed that the sewer was excavated to wii'hiii Gin of tho claimant's boundary. .Continuing, counsel said that as the work neared 'Mr Wright's premises he waa warned by his friends to be on his guard, wid accordingly he asked an expert, and also tho board's engineer, to look ai his house. This tliey did, and they found that there waa no evidence of subsidence and no cracks oil the building. His Hjwwr suggested that the court should the land and <the premises. M: Hoslang said ho bad intended to suggest such a course.

The assessors were Mr J. F. Woodhonse (for the claimant) and Hr John Wright (for the respondents), Mr J. H. Hosking appeared for the claimant, James Wright, butcher, Gargill road, Oavor-sha-m, and Dr Findlay (of Wellington), with Mr J. C. Stephens, for the respondents. J>r Findlay requested his Honor to note, as a preliminary objection, that the respondents did not adroit that the claimant was entitled in law to any compensation. His Honor noted the objection. Mr Hosking said the claim was for injuriously affecting -the claimant's laud in Oargill road. The wort) complained of consisted of the excavation of the soil of the road below its surface at a short distance from the frontage line of tho pieco of land, for the purpose of constructing, m the excavation part, olio of the main sewers which the board had been constructing as part of its draiuago system. The excavation took plaoe about the 14th of February, 1905, and within 48 hours the buildings were cracked, the floors were not level, the walls were out of position, and there were all the indications that followed from a. subsidence. This coincidence in itself would bo sufficient to show that it wns duo to the excavations that the damage occurred. His Honor asked if t'nc excavation was on the footpath.

Mi Hosking repKed that the sewer was excavated to wii'hiu Gin of tho Claimant's boundary. .Continuing, counsel said that as the work neared 'Mr Wright's premises he waa warned by his friends to bo on his guard, wid accordingly he asked an expert, and also tho board's engineer, to look ai his house. This tliey did, and they found that there waa no evidence of subsidence and no cracks oil the building. His Hjwwr suggested that the court should the land and <the premises. M: Hosliing said ho bad intended to suggest such a course.

Dr Fmdky, in reply to his Honor, said lie would not object to this plan, except to say that if t-he court, at tho olose of Mr Hoskiws's opening, visited the locality it would do°so with only one set of facts before it. His i Horror said tJiey could get over that difficulty by hearing from Dr Findaly tho points to which he would 'ike to direct the attention of the court prior to its vistf to the locality.

Dr Findlay said he would agree to that. It would givo h:3 learned friend the benefit of hearing the case for the respondents before the conclusion of tie oa.se for the claimants. M r Hosking remarked that under the prosont rules it was very inconvenient that a, claimant should have to trait for the opening of a respondent's case before hn learned the nature of the defence that was to be set up. It meant that he bad to call many witnesses who, if he knew the defence, might net be necossiTy. His Honor said an alteration was certainly desirable in that respeot. Mr Hosking, continuing, said that when tile damage was first noticed the claimant mads complaint about it to Mir Anderson, the board's engineer, who said it would be all right. Later on, a conference was aaked for by Mr Anderson, and the claimant "obtained a report on the state of his buildings from Mr Petre, architect. As a result of the conference, the board agreed to certain repairs being effected, which it paid for. The board also »?kcd that the claimant should leave things aa they were for six months, the object being to ascertain if the subsidence had worked itself out. Mr Wright agreed to this. At tho end of the six months, however, the board was not ready, as it was before, to acknowledge its liability. If the claimant had at that time pushed his olaim ho might not' be in court that day. Counsel went an to say that the principal claim made by the claimant was in respeot of tlie subsidence of the land and damage to the brick building, for which he claimed 1500. Counsel explained the reason for claiming the other amounts, and vrent on to say that the points to which he would direct the coutlb' attention, on iis visit to the property, were these: The evidence of subsidence all along Cwgill road irom the Andorsou's Bay.

road the cracks in the building, the way in | T r *"? and thp . lius of the floors. _ In addition, lie would: call : the court s attention to the adjoining buildm ß s on the opposite side of Ed J win street for the purpose of seeing the effects of .k"'? sideniv at that point. sub ' Dr I'indlav said he would briefly refer to the points which, m the opinion of the respondents wphuued (he true cause, oi the sinking of the building,. L earnK co ™ placed « number cl photographs before the court and said tlut the board's contention was that thej brick building was in motion long before (be board did ; ts work t 1 1 he chimney m one of the views was c l ln tL, out of plijnih, illustrating what had happened to the building lie would also „k the co,r to determine this question: Assuming thl all moveinen of every kind had stopped, was not he building as it stood perfectly safe ,' I °." table I for * he purposes for which it ua» being used. Mr lioskitig had said tin* within 4S hours of the work being done there had happened something that ono would havo thought only o small eathquake would have so promptly effected. The court would be asked to look at what had reallv b EOII d olle and 0 note exactly tho cracks that appeared on the building. The respondents relied a great deal on the floors, which rose to a point about tho centre—in other words, they fell awav from the centre in all directions, -hey (lid not slope as they would havo if there hud been a depression towards road. Like his learned friend, ho had also to ask the court to look at the unevenness of other land in Cargill road. When this building was erected it had an cxccedin<dv so t basis. A number of the buildings, not oni} ill this street, but on the same class Of ground-nearly all the older brick build-ings-showed signs of having sunk, and were either on pi level or out of plumb. (hell B,lolv what ca " sc <* these other brick buildings to go. that r , T le»d evidence to show tliat. if we had done no work at all this ™ t1i l o S c,V i llave , s . unk as o{ her buildings ir tt V 1 0 s 0 l' ave sunk. . Hcsknig- submitted that that was not It" wmin 0 ' a' 1 ? col,rt woulc ' cntor It would mean that every brick building that was g'ven as an illustration worn! havo to bo examined m order to find out to what Wif b dlv 7 t,on T 2 S the ' 14 ma y have " P - K Would b ° "<«- tw ir'"™ 115 ' 1 T ! le ev , i ' , ? l ! ce wiM <5° (o that if Jon put a bnck building of tho lion<* iM building, with the foundaSl ' iiT laiKl 0[ tllat "aturo you n» In nrn f V lnkillß of the bu'ild--1 ~1 ,1 ■ , ot 'bat we shall show that buildings of the same kind on precisely the sanie kind of land have sunk It was decided to visit the locality after tl e luncheon adjournment, and in order to called" m ° 1 oc ' oc k evidence was James Wright, the claimant, said there was no damage done to the brick building or to the cottage before the board carried out its i? /I- rgl " lm , d ' m,en the ™fks reached his premises he could not close his iS T'l 5" d to bo Ilaile(1 0,1 ll '° inside A bedroom door upstairs also refused to shut, and there were other signs of subsidence having taken place. At 2 o'clock the court visited the locality Mr -retro accompanying on behalf of the claimant and Mr Forrest on behalf of the respondents. On tho court reassembling shortly after * o clock it was announced that the case would be proceeded with at 10.30 next morning