MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21600, 22 March 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Monday, March 21. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) CRICKETER BREAKS COMPANYS WINDOW. Edward Howlisou, motor garage proprietor, brought a claim against the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of Dunedin for damages. The plaintiff is the occupier of a motor garage in Princes street eouth, and the defendants are the owners of the Oval, a playing area, situate opposite the garage. On November 5 a ball hit from the Oval by a cricketer named Murray broke a plate-glass window in the plaintiff’s garage. The plaintiff claimed from the defendants the sum of £32 11s, being the cost of repairs to the window. Counsel for the plaintiff said that the cricketer Murray was a member of a team from the Dunedin Technical School. On November 5 last the team was playing on the,/Oval under the charge of a master, and a ball was driven clean through the plaintiff’s front window. Immediately after the accident the plaintiffpaced the distance from his premises to the pitch from which the hall was hit, and found it measured 72 ordinary paces. The wicket, it would be shown, was in a dangerous place— too near the roadway ind too near business premises. Hitting on to the footpath might have caused injury to pedestians, and if a ball had hit a tramcar the result might have been serious. A grave nuisance had evidently been committed by the defendants owing to their servant laying out a cricket pitch in a place where either passers-by or property owners might have suffered damage. Last year the plaintiff had the same window broken by a ball hit from tlie Oval. Prior to the mishap an insurance company had protested to the City Council against the danger, and the day following the mishap it received a letter from the town clerk stating that the City Council accepted no responsibility for damage to windows, though it would do all it could to reduce liability to damage. The plaintiff wrote to the City Council making a claim on it for damage, and received a reply stating that as the council was in no way responsible for the driving of the ball through the window it disclaimed liability, adding that the proper person to whom the claim should be referred was the boy who - was responsible for the damage. Counsel submitted that the City Council was liable on the principle of the law of nuisance. It created a wicket from which a nuisance was committed, . Edward Howlison, the plaintiff, said that from his_ previous experience he believed the wicket was placed too close to the road. He saw the ball strike his window on the full, about seven feet from the ground. William Alexander, a schoolmaster at the Dunedin Technical College, said the boys went to the Oval on_e day every week. He measured the distance from the window to the bowler’s end of the pitch, and it was 73 paces. ■ Evidence was also given by Harold Burrell (motor mechanic, employed by plaintiff) and Thomas Little (motor body builder). . Counsel for the corporation said the wicket was laid out by the groundsman of the corporation under the direction of the superintendent of reserves and that before this accident it was considered reasonably safe for the purposes of cricket. James Marshall, groundsman at the Oval, said he had been there eight years and the wicket in question had been m use for five years. It was prepared for schoolboys. The distance from the window to the crease was 89 yards four inches and no complaints regarding the site of the wicket had been received. To counsel for the plaintiff, witness said he was sure the wicket had been there for five years. He had altered the position of the wicket since the accident. William Alexander Rowlands, formerly a member of the Cricket Association representing the Grange Club, gave measurements of wickets from the roadline on the North Ground. Windows had been broken there and the club had paid for them. He considered a crease of 89 yards from the plaintiffs window was quite safe. To counsel for the plaintiff, witness said a hit of 50 or 60 yards on the full was a big hit for a boy of 16 or 17 years. - . Alexander Ross, groundsman at Cansbrook, produced a plan of the wickets at Carisbrook. It showed that for a representative match the long boundaries measured 65 yards and 72 yards respectively and the side boundaries about 64 yards. He considered a distance of 89 yards safe for cricket, and a hit of 50 yards would be a good hit for a schoolboy. To counsel for the defence, witness said that a hard drive of low trajectory, if it struck an asphalt roadway, would bounce another 30 or 40 yards. ..... Mr Rowlands, recalled, said that at a meeting of the Committee of Management of tile Cricket Association a complaint was made of the proximity of wickets to the street. William Noel Smith, who bowled the ball which caused the accident, said the ball landed on the road on the far side of the tram rails and bounced through the window. He had never seen sucli_ a big hit before. To counsel for the plaintiff, witness said he had not played on that wicket before and he had not seen the wicket before. John Angus Dunning, a master at John M'Glashan College, and captain of this year’s Otago cricket team, thought a crease 89 yards from property was quite a reasonable distance away, especially for schoolboys. He considered 50 yards would be a big hit for a schoolboy. To counsel for the plaintiff, witness considered that a hit of 60 yards was an exceedingly big hit. If the ball in this case went between 70 and 80 yards it must have been a phenomenal hit. The court adjourned at this stage to enable the magistrate to inspect the wicket. In the afternoon, after evidence had been given by David Tannock (superintendent of reserves), counsel for the parties addressed the court. His Worship reserved his decision.