PERPLEXING ARGUMENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 492, 23 October 1928, Page 13

PERPLEXING ARGUMENT

SIX COUNSEL APPEAR IN INVOLVED CASE PICTURE THEATRE CLAIM No fewer than six counsel were engaged in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Blair .in arguing a claim for damages brought by the owner of a theatre and the lessee of it against the Xew Lynn Town Board. The plaintiffs alleged that tunnelling works by the board were responsible for the collapse of part of the wall of the theatre. The lessee. H. O. Browne, who was represented by Mr. L. P. Leary, was the principal plaintiff. He sought compensation for loss of profits from the enforced closing of the theatre from May 13 until such time as its repairing. He also asked compensation for loss of public confidence and depreciation of goodwill. The second plaintiff, G. V. Mullenger, represented by Mr. G. P. Finlay, asked for repair of his theatre. Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Haddow appeared for the defendant board and Mr. Inder and Mr. Lowrie for the contractors, William Stevenson and Son. The plaintiffs originally were to have proceeded separately against the defendants, but it was agreed that their interests and evidence were identical. Over an hour was employed in an argument among counsel and the Bench as to whether the action should have come before the Compensation Court or whether it was a question for the Supreme Court. “Frankly I do not know where I am,” said his Honour after listening to involved discussion. “I do not know what you are all agreed upon and I do not know what I am to try.” After further argument his Honour adjourned the Court, requesting counsel to 4Lraw up a written basis on which tfee action might proceed. (Proceeding.)