COMPENSATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Volume 13696, Issue 13696, 12 September 1906, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT

WRIGHT v. THE DRAINAGE BOARD. A FINDING FOR CLAIMANT OX FACT. Tho Compensation Court held a brief-sitting yealerdaj morning, his Honor Mr Justice Cooper presiding, and Messrs Woodhouse and Wright (assessors) being also resent. Tho case before tho court was tho claim by James Wright against the Dnnedin Drainage Hoard, in which Wright e.aimed ££5i as compensation tor damages to buildings at Cargill caused . through tho board's •derations in putting :n a Eewcr. Mr Hosking appeared for claimant and Mr Stephens for rcsjjpmlents. The /court's finding on tlto fads were as follows: — 1. Tho lower portion of {lie building was erected over 20 years before the ( board commenced its drainage operations. 2. The upper storey was 'placed on tho building about 10 years ago. 3. The weight of tho upper storey wan less than tho weight of the lowe. storey. ■1. Tho .trench was dug by the board in a public street in the City of Dunedin, which street was not vested in tho board, but in tho Corporation of the City of Dunedin, and but for the board's Authorising Act it would have had no legal power to interfere with the street. 5. The soil- wcu'.d han-o subsided without the weight of the building, and with the weight of, .tlio lower storey it would have subsided to as great-an extent as it did in consequence of tho,board's operations. 6. Tho subsidence of the Eoil| which look place after tho beard's operations, waa sufficient to cause tho daraago Irappeping to tho building from the time of tho opening of the trench by' the board. 7. Tho subsidence was duo to tho withdrawal througtt tho board's operations of water and «oil,.biit to what proportionate amount tho «oii waa present in tho water which was drawn oft by tho board's operations wo arc unable to say. 8. There were no engineering difficulties in the-way of continuing tho drain without deviating towards Wright's place, and digging tho trench so near to Wright's building was a very hazardous and risky proceeding. 9. Tho building was, up to the time of the board's operations, in a substantially good condition, . and it Had been in this condition for some years. 10. There had been a settlement to some extent some years bafore .the board's opera-, tions, and tho result waa that to some extent, the floors.and ceilings were out of level. The result of the board's operations was to cause a further -settlement of tho building and to separate tho wa'.l along tho back from tho foundation witl to cause the front and other walls to sink to some extent and to rack tho building and twist the floors. 11. In the event of tho board being liable upon these findings lo pay compensation we assess tho full' compensation'in respect of all the matters complained of by the claimant at iaOO, the boatd to pay to tlie claimant the sum of £168 costs, £105 legai costs and tho. claimant's assessor's fee- £63,' together with costs of witnesses and court fees, to be taxed in tho usual way by the Registrar of tho Supreme Court. 12. I (the. president) fix tho assessor's fees at £(>3. for each assessor, the board to nay its assessor.tho sum of £G3. A forma) award to bo ..drawn up and signed m the event of the president of tho"court, or the Supreme Court, if r, caso is-stated for tho opinion of the Supreme Court, deciding that in law the board are liqblo to pay upon these findings tho said sum of £300 compensation to the claimant.

His Honor said the question now would bo whether upon the findings Mr Stephens pro posed to contest the liability.

Mr 'Stephens: You do not ask me fur an answer to that now, your Honor?.

His Honor said ho thought it was right Mr Stephens should have time to consider the •matter, and for that purpose ho would formally adjourn the court until 10.30 on Monday morning, because the court could not be dissolved ill tho meantime. If Mr Stephens then intimated that ho did not propose to nTguc any questions r bf law the. award of the court could bo formally drawn up. In the interval Mr Hoskicg might adjust the matter of -witnesses' expenses, as. that would havo to bo included in the award If Ifr Stephens did not contest liability, or if ho contested liability and failed, the jtbovo'finding would be tho award of the court..