COMPENSATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13693, 8 September 1906, Page 5

COMPENSATION COURT.

WRIGHT v. THE DRAINAGE BOARD. The hearing of the compensation claim mado by James Wright against tho Dunedm Drainage-Board for damage to buildings in Cargill road was resumed before Ins Honor Mr Justico Cooper and Messrs »oodhouse and Wright (assessors), yesterday morning, Mr Hosking appearing for claimant and Mr. Stophens for respondents.

Mr Stephens, in addressing the court on fact, said something had been said about no offer and no attempt being made by flic Drainage Board to settle this claim. Ho desired to point out. in that connection tlijifc there were two principles involved in the case. It was the first largo claim that had been made against the board, though several small ones had been made and settled. The first question was (he general question of compensation, which had already been decided by his Honor, and tho oilier quostion was tlio liability on the theory of water alone. His Honor said lie understood the board had made no offer, becauso it did not consider itself liable. Mr Stephens said another reason why no oiler had been mado was that the board wished to have the position definitely settled. There would bo iw settlement ail over the Flat by reason of tho drainage works of tho board,

_ Mr Hosking: Mr Forrest said something in a wild way.

Mr Stephens: Well, wo expect it, at anyrate. Continuing, ho said the case for claimant was that 'on tho 14th February the buildings on his (claimant's) proporty ■at Gargill road were absolution sound. The walls wcro plumb, the floors -were level, and there were no cracks —and never had been any cracks, outside or in—from the titno, the building was erected, and that within 48 hours practically all the damago was done. Tho claimant had said that on tho 15th February a door had stuck, arid on tho 16th a largo crack had appeared over tho comer window and the insido doors and window were affected.- Mr Stephens.wont on to review the evidence of other witnesses, and said .the difficulty he laboured under was that he hud no eye witnesses of tho position of the building on the 14th February, except Mr Roberts, the ganger, who said lie saw a small crack under tho window, wliich ho apparently treated as of no significance;-"Ho thought it. was possible to prwrc- frow -iho 'Jgctsthat Mr Wright and his witnesses were mistaken to a. considorablo extent, and if he could prove that he thought it would 'ii? c< \ci t,lc i" testimon . v u P on other questions. Mr btephons thenjvent on to refer in detail to tho injuries to the building, and lo what tuo witnesses had said concerning* them, and contended that there must have been something wrong with < the building •Woro the board commenced its work in the street. .It was quite uhreasonablo to argue tho building eyor was itt plumb, It was impossible, iii the face of the evidence, to come to tho conclusion thnt the timber in the trench had shifted at all. Mr Hosking submitted that, the Compensation Court had not to deal with all the facts that might arise, and said until ho Knew what tho questions of law to be raised were he waß at a' disadvantage, and could not say to what extent the fact s were to he found by tho court. Compensation could be assessed, and the board could pay the money into oourt, and leave claimant to get it out,- in which case-the court would find the facts. Tl)0 position was 'that if tho assessors found tho amount of the damago,'and there were questions of law to bo argued before that amount was awarded, the president would hear discussion upon the questions of law., and if the questions of law wore in favour of claimant, it would call the court together again m order to award the amount assessed.

His Honor said that in order, to ascertain the liability of persons file facts in theenso were very important. He would siirJfrost thai counsel agreo that the three (his Honor, Messrs Woodliouso and Wright) wore silting as a jury to find tho facts. Would Mr Stephens and Mr Iloskings agree that they should find eortain questions of fact.

.Mr Stephens: Yes, certainly. Mr Hosking said he had not 'yet been supplied with the nuestions of law to bo raised bv his friend.

His Honor said that perhaps if lliey had a short adjournment Mr Stephens might' formulate for Mr Haskings's information tho question's of law |io proposed to raise, antl determine these questions of law. If they adjourned to 10.30 next morning Mr Stephens could formulate his questions of law, and the. three sitting together would find the facts, and counsel could argue the law upon tho finding of these facts, which would be, a much moro satisfactory slate of affairs.

llr Hosking said the question miirht arise whethei- he should not make application for the. court to order a trench to be dug, so as to see if the soil came away. Ilis Honor: I (Vn't think we have power to order that to be done. Mr Stephens; then proceeded,, to deal with the onestion of tho. tunnels, one of which, it hart been stated, hnd caved in and cn\ised the damage. He contended nothing of tho sort had occurred.. A'ssuming there had' been a' caving inoo r tho funnel or a fall of earth from the tunnel, as. witnesses had pointed out, they would not 1 have been able to lay their pipes in ..perfect alienment; Eliminating a number of cases, which ho enumerated, there only remained one cause for the settlement, and lie suggested tlio true one was the withdrawal of water. He suggested the discussion of damages be left over till noxt morning. Tho court then adjourned, lo sit again at 11. o'clock this morning.