MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1929, 2 November 1926, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

BROMLEY V. M. COWLEY. PLAINTIFFS NONSUITED. (Otorohanga Correspondent). An action in which Harriet Maria Bromley and her husband claimed £SO damages from Mark Cowlley was concluded at the last slitting of the local Court. Mr OUiihpant appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Mossman for defendant. The case had been part heard at the previous September sitting when the evidence of plaintiff and her husband was heard. Plaintiffs aUdg&d that defendant had wrongfully interfered with their telephone wire and thereby cut them off from the, exchange. Defendant denied any wrongful interference. Mr Oliphant quoted authority to the effect that plaintiff had an easement and a legal right over the party telephone line an|l was entitled to damages for any wrongful disturbance of such easement. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence Mr Mossman moved for a nonsuit on the ground that no legal cause of action had been established and that for plaintiff to succeed plaintiff must have etxdlusive 'possession of the easement. Plaintiff did not have exclusive, possession as Dassler was the other joint party. A further ground for a nonsuit (hie contended, was that no satisfactory evidence had been adduced to prove that Cowley had damaged plaintiff's wire and further evidence as to damage suffered showed the damage to be trivial as the phone connection had not been satisfactory at any time. Counsel said, defendant and his witnesses were prepared to go into the witness box and state the case which was to the effect that the subscribers had appointed Cowley to repair the line and all parties had been led to believe (by plaintiffs) that plaintiffs were giving up the telephone and accordingly their connection was noc linked up .witih the other subscribers. Cowley would deny damaging plaintiff's wire. Mr Mossman stated he was prepared to call evidence to the above effect for the defence if necessary, but asked his Worship to nonsuit plaintiffs on the above legal grounds. His Worship upheld counsel'o defence without calling on defendant's evidence and nonsulited plaintiffs witih costsi and witnesses eixpensies, total of £lO Is granted to 'defendant.