SUPREME COURT INVERCARGILL.

Western Star, Issue 1574, 27 June 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT INVERCARGILL.

(Before His Honor Justice William). TutSOAY, %'SIID Jc.vk. (From Inrercargill Papors.) W. REED, SEXR. AXI) JLWU. V. XIGHTCAP3 COAL COMPANY. The hearing of this case was continued in tbo afternoon. The claim was for £SOO for damiges sustained through the alleged flooding of the plaintiffs' mino by the defendants. Evidence for plaintiffs was continued.— Richard Jones and VV. Gutzell, employed by the defendants, doposod to the removal of the dam and the consequent flooding of Birrel! and Heed's land.—J. Birrell stated that the defendants paid a royalty for the ooal they mined on his seofcion. When h e got the land tb.oro was a water-course, which was marked on tho title deeds 33 a sludgo channel, the wator iu which came from the Wairio stream. The channel was worlcoi away with the rest of tho surface in the ordinary course of mining, and tho coal underneath it was mined. To get at the coal anothor channel was cut, and the water diverted, and a dam was constructed at the point whera the now channel cro.-v.9d tho bod of Ihe old creek. The bank of 110 creek having been cut awav, tho dam was locessary to protect his and Reed's land Its i ijmoval flooded the latter'e section, and the ivo seams of coal formcrlv worked there w*i oot visible. It was better for Reed to ope:, a now face thm to try and pump out the wa' -v. To giva Keed tho facilities that he formerly possessed would involve considerable lab-, ir and oxpense. Tho defendants had giv ! up possession of witness's land shortly bel■,!•« the 2Gth May.—Cross-examined: Pa'<,i of Reeds and witnes,' sections were hab j to bo flooded when there were heavy treses in tbo rivers—this even before minine ope I'tons were started.

W. Gattery, R. Cottorell, J. Costmff. an( j h Wi ;.ira Roed, the elder, also gave ovideocp The last named stated that his son, who was ■■■ joined with him in {he action, was 15 vears oh! last birthday. Witness had been in possession of the land on which the mine was situated for seven or right vears, has been in i _ oacupation over since, and had erected buildings and made other iinprovrnents on the land. y Be first mined coal for his own u.-e eight onme years ago, and had been working the mine for about fiVe years. There was very 0 little water at first— vitnoss was able to bale it out with a bucket. Pumps were subsequently obtained. The defendants removed their plant from their ojal pt on Birrell's land shortly before they took away the dam. > Apart from the value of the coil" which he ha 1 been compelled to leave untnined through _ the flooding of his pit, it would cost from j £2OO to £250 to reniovo the water, for to obtain relief he would have to take the water away from section* 2 and 3 as well as his own. fie had just got the mine into good working order when it was floo 'p 1. It would 3 take throo years before he, would be in as J good a position as ho was p-ior to the flooding of the mine so far as facility and extent of p working were concerned. Ho had been putting out 10 to 12 tons daily, and for the next three months, while oponing up the new face ho would, with the same labour, only be ' able to put out four or five tons a day. He received no warning that the darn was removed. d Wednesday, 24th June. REED V. KIOHTCAPS COAL CONJIPAXY. Sir Stout contended inter i»lia that as defendants had turned the water into the original coursp, and as the Reeds had not in complianco with tho Mining Act left a wall between their workings and tho adjoining section worked by defendants thev were not d liable. His Honor scouted die first proposition ■• and it was pointed out trwt Keed was mining on his land long before the company loased i that adjoining; alio, that defendants had not '• left a wall on their side. He summed up 8 very strongly in favour of plaintiffs, remarks ing that the action of tho defendants gave colour to the opening statemont of plaintiffs* 1 counsel—namely, that it was done with the view of ruining a rival trader, The Jndee ■ however, held that Reed, sen., could gef nothing, having bought the land for his son" 0 who was its owner as much a3if it had been left to him by will. '. Tho jury then retired, and returned in ! twenty minutos with a verdict for W. Reed ■ the younger—damages, £258 10s. Judgment accordingly ; costs as per scale • " disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be' »- fixed by the registrar; and £ls 15s to counsel for second day. On Ihe application of - Sir It. Stout tho defendants were allowed £5 5s as against W. Reed the elder. ' Thursday, 25th June. 3 E. BRENNAN V. T. GREEN. r In this action, which was heard by his Honor alone, the plaintiff prayed (1) That the defendant be declared a trustee of sec tions 283 and 235, Hokonni, on behalf of the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant be ordered to execnto a transfer of said sretions to the plaiutiff upon such Wms and conditions at to the Court may fit; (3) that the defendant be ordered to refund commission charged for selling said sections, £lO • and (1) that an account bo taken, and the defendant ordered to pay to the plaintiff any moneys th.-.t may be found to be due to him on tho taking of such account.—Mr Solomon aopearod for the plaintiff and Mr Maceresror for the defendant. ° After hearing evidence the decision of tho Court was recorded in tho following terms Plaintiff entitled to decree, to bo settled'in chambers in Duncdin; costs reserved. T. W. II ALL v. P. DA Lit TUPLE. Claim for £127 18s lid, balance due on mortgage Mr Russell, who apprared for the plaintiff, stated that tho mortgage was admitted, and although a defence had been lodeed it was loformni, aDd tho othor side did not intend to appear, His Honor, after hearing the evidence of ))•;, Y' H - Hal1 ' R " W - Hil ". and T. I> Gilteder, gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Fkiday, 2Gth June. K'rA-x Hayhow v. W. S. Trotter, G U Willinmson and James Elliot, as oxeotors of the will of Thomas Truruble, deceased claim of £IOOO with interest. Mr Wade for plaintiff, and Mr T. M. Macdonald for defendants Mi-Wade said that Mrs Hayhow was a daughter of Thomas Trumble deceased. The facts of the case were that doeeased testator gave a sum of £IOOO to his daughter in the shape of road board debentures, and for a time she received interest on the money The lady wont to Melbourne and there got'innr rie-1, and as was shown in letters which passed between father and daughter, in consequence of a difficulty in connection with the receipt of interest, tho tostator requested her to transfer to him the debentures, which was done. The defendants appeared to maintain that the transfer *as made in conso queiico of a promise by Mr Trumblo that ho would nay the plaintiff the interest accruing on the debentures and also provide for her by his will. He had not dono so, and as a matter of fact the provision in the will cou'd not be said to be a legacy equal to the amount of tl p deb, He had received tho money in rust for his daughter, and therefore the." tale was a debtor to that sum. If he bid lei her unconditionally a sun. of £IOOO j would have been open for the Court to con elude that it was m pay me „t of the debt, but h. was only to receive the interest on tho li ih m C ° U d " ot toUub fche Principal, so that the provision could not be regarded '« a redemption of the debt. * w " s a

Mr MaalonaW having replied, Hid Honor said he wnnU ,-..• judgment and send would deliver it in Danedin tnlt>t,ai ' or he The Court then adjourned sine die.