MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22213, 16 March 1934, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, March 15. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs was given in the following cases:—-A. Campbell v. G. P. Richards, claim £3, for money paid on defendant’s behalf, with costs (£1 7s Gd); F. J. Townsend v. A. Henderson (Alanaia), claim £1 10s, as balance of money lent to the defendant, with costs (I4s); Otago Electric Power Board v. James Porter (Balclutha), claim £1 2s 2d, for electric power supplied, with costs (8s); Otako Electric Power Board v. V. G. Lane (Ponuawea), claim £1 17s, for power supplied, with costs (12s) ; Otago Electric Power Board v. John Clark Calder (Owaka), claim £6 7s lod, for power supplied, with costs (17s); Williamson Jeffrey, Ltd., v. Thomas R. Parkhouse (Westport), claim £39 oslod, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 7s 6d); Stanton Bros., Ltd., v. Harry Hunt (Ohura), claim £1 6s lid, for goods supplied, with costs (8s) ; Hislop and Gibson v. H. Rennie, claim £3 lls 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 5s 6d). NEIGHBOURS’ DISPUTE.

John M'Conncll proceeded against Janies Stark M'Gilvary, owner, and Robert Mason, occupier of a property adjoining the plaintiff’s in Russell street, claiming from each the sunl of £l2 damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants wrongfully excavated a clay bank on M'Gilvary’s property without leaving proper or sufficient support for the land. As the result of the excavation the plaintiff’s land had sunk and given way, and was diminished in value. Moreover, the plaintiff’s house had also subsided and become damaged. —Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the plaintiff and the defendants M'Gilvary and Mason wore represented by Messrs R. A. King and C. M. Barnett respectively.—Mr Irwin said the action was one for damages resulting from the removal of a lateral support from the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff’s property was situated in Russell street, and the defendant M'Gilvray had three houses one behind the other. The rear one, that occupied by the defendant Mason, adjoined the plaintiff’s. About 20 years ago the plaintiff built his house close up to the defendant’s boundary, which was a brick wall standing on concrete. The •plaintiff contended that the defendant, Mason, with the authority of M'Gilvary, excavated the yard of his property to such an extent that in a short time the eartli under the wall gave way, resulting in serious damage. This would have been even more serious if arrangements bad not been made (without prejudice) to take action to check it. — After bearing evidence and addresses by counsel for the defendants the magistrate reserved his decision..