COMPENSATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Volume 13694, Issue 13694, 10 September 1906, Page 7

COMPENSATION COURT.

WP.IQHT V. T)IB DRAINAGE BOARD. Hid Compensation Court (His Honor Mr Justice Cooper, president; .and Messrs \Vcodhouse and Wright, assessors) eat again on Saturday morning, when the hearing of the compensation claim made 'by James 'Wright against tho Duncdin Drainage Board was co'nti|mcd. • Mr Hpsiting appeared for claimant, and Mr Stephens (or respondents. Jfr Stophons said ho had handed his friend, Mr Hosking, a .note of the legal questions he •proposed to. raise, He hud found on consideration lib could confine himself practically to the question of water only. Practically the .whole question, so far as ha was concerned, was the question as'to whether tho board was liable for. tho withdrawal of water. The following were his legal questions: , That, if the court found 'that- tho_ subsidence which caused the damage was due to tho withdrawal of water only from claimant's land, the board was under no liability to pay compensation. That claimant was not cntitlod to aupport in rcspcct of the second story oi his building. Mr Hcsking had handed him the legal questions ho proposed to raise, and these wejo as follows: "(1 That wo havo a right of support in respect of the building, as well as tho land, and that our right of support extends' to support from water. (2) That npavt from the questions cf tho claim depending on a right of support we- arc entitled to compensation for (lie damago sustained by virtue of the hoard's aots and the Public Works Act, and on the ground also that tho board was negligent. (U) That tho board's operations were a .nuisance apart from its authorising acts, and did us special damage. Its operations were : yot in its own.soil, and it ounnot claim tho immunity of aii adjoining ownor in the circumstances of this case." Continuing, Mr Stephens said he had dealt with the facts concerned ill this statement in his address ■the previous day, and he had only to add with -regard to the question of negligence that Mr Hny'n evidenee vras sufficient to show that tho works of the board were sufficient under the circumstances. In assessing compensation there wore only two important considerations. Ilis Honor: The main thing is whether the walls havo to ■ come down or whether the building can he repaired without it. Mr Stephens said as to tho amount of loss through inconvenience, ho would like to say a; word about it. Even if tho walls had to come down the claim for loss of business wsls .an (.'xagfjmM line, Mr Itosking, in referring to tho statement previously made by Mr Stephens as to the licard'n anxiety to have its position defined, said it was never suggosled at any time that there was anydofenoc lo the claim, cxcept on tho question of amount and on the ground that the statute'gave thorn immunity from liability to compensate for operations taking place in tho rttrcot. _ lUd claimant bt>en apprised what it. was going to cost, to test this claim in consequence of. this engineering question as (o what o.auscd the subsidence,' lie might have' I'imsidored his position beforo ho launched upon a protracted and expensive investigation.' He submitted that the lower storey of Mr ' Wfight'j building was built 20 years beforo nuhsidence; that tho upper storey was built 10 years beforo the subsidence;! that the dvainago operations, of tho• board wore in tho public street of the citv of Kiuicdin, and thesa were not vested in the board, and tlwt hut for tho authorising ad these operations would havo beep a nuisance; that tl|e soil would have subsided to the simii extent as it did even without tho weight of the building; that the subsidence of the soil that took place would have been sufficient '° do the damage complained of; that the tub'idence was (hie to the withdrawal of \vnter «ntl solid matter or soil; und that thebonrrt was negligent. He submitted also that tho building was in good order and sound repair JiliniediaMy before the opening of the trcnch. lie admitted it .settled to some extent at the tune of tho erection of the original storey, but there was no evidence of any settlement since the original storey was put thero up to the timo of the board's operations. At tho conclusion of Mr Hosking's address his Honor said they would havo to formally adjourn the court until 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning, and they hoped to be then ablo to announce their decision.' ,Tii» court rose at 1 p.m.