CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 517, 26 May 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

dispute ■M^ ;:' v;'ANGELL fJVBEStsi CADBIJRY: BROS!- ■. ; . Sarah ''Baxter '-Aiigeli v> (who'.was represented:by; Air; Blair)andliad- ,; /.bury Bros. appeared) •.;'; came ; on;: -.for ./hearing'before Mr. Justice .'■; /Cooper yesterday.': :/:/:.■;;.i.:V';/f..v; ; .'■ '.;.-h-: ;: -'■• : : : : . i '•',%i 3 , was a.claimin.respect 'of the alleged . ;i : encroachment:of:defendant8 f new, premises in' ' ■■■.;. Ghuznee Street on plaintiff's property. , ' ;De- •'.■;• fendarits,;: it/waa ! alleged,'.:tvrongfully! 'tries? ■;.; passed'on : plaintiff's'^property,,removedVher .-:.-■• boundary/.fence, and proceeded to erect" the. :; : ,;'Plumtiff.-'asserted''':that''ilie' ' ... gave/ notice, .to r the .contractors/ Messrs.- .. Wanders', Bros, (who .were joined as defend- ;:: ; ;ants). before; any..■bricks;.were:laid ) but," ~\ spite.the:.wttrning, defendants proceeded with the-erectioa of the'building; - She; claimed ■;V .that: defendants be compelled to 'remove , tho. \ h'jwall from;her ground. -also/filOO as damages, ■j: ■:: By.their/stat'emenVf'otdefehce,the defendant ,'• •' 'company: asserted that/the'.dividing fence i. V: was.taken;down.by ileave,of .plaintib's' hus- ;' y band, who;wa's;her / it/Was-denied ■.// that; : ii6tice:'was/given/to , the. contractors or ;: : :;,defendants : that the" trench'for: the wall en- . croachedupbi plaintiff's land.' V ..': "\ ,/ ■'■ : .;:::Openingvthe.case.;forr : plaintiff, Mr.; Blair ;.'-.': ;: stated -that .'the/space! of , , land '-.which': plaintiff: '•. :■;',claimed.; that : -''she ■ had been : deprived of 'was : ; '■■ ,3} inches:/ .The'land in question was of con- ; biderable valuej : inasmuch as that it formed ', part ,:of -.a :8-feet j passage-way, between 'the' .':' buildings;: oped .by the .-parties., Plaintiff "occupied-about 10 inches-more land than ■ : : ; wa3 mentionedin her certificateof title. ..It '•■■. ■;: was immaterial, hs submitted, whether'the .: v excess of area.was taken as part'of the title, '•'• or,.' .whether.'it was .held under prescriptive ;'.■■• 'light; ; ■:,-::,,;■ ■ ■ '■■ ;■■ r His Honour:"•;• Supposing that your client .. :;\ succeeds;'surely yoir would not:press for the :; ■ ■ injunction?,,-; Damages.would beall that you :■, 'could claim., ...' .- •.'.;'■.-. ■ v-... ■':■..-. . : . :„...,. Mr.ißlair: But defendants,' it is submitted,; .., v- : deliberately.werit on.-with the'wall after they ■ : had been:warned.-!■"::>/.' , •-.■. :■■..■■::■,. '■:■■' y,-'. ; His Honour:- You 'did i not 'claim'an' : inter-' .'ilncutpry: injunction. '.It would not be right '-.... in the ' circumstancea' to compel: defendants :- ;■: to! pull down a wall; of.:the £7000 .building '..-■ which'-was:erected iu:the meantime., "v.'i -. V.'.-;' Mr. .Blair.:: They'.need not pull down -the '.: wall; they could shave 3,inchea off it. '• \ : . v His Honour ■■(amid laughter): Oh, no. ■ ' ■'•:! * Evidence! was given by a number of- wit- ' nesses in; support of the .claim.'.." ' : .. Mr. Williams, in his opening on behalf of ■. .' defendants,' Contended, that.plaintiff was'oc- :•••;; cupying a /strip of land 'which: was not in- .,: eluded in: her, title; /jThere! was, in fact, a ' ■.'.strip.of "no.nian's'land" -between the pro- .:' :pertieß._ Plaintiff 1 had ..taken a .portion.-.of ,-'.- ,'■ : the ,' strip ..whilst defendants ..had ..taken the V /.'/balance.:--' ■'■■ /-/ : : " : //''■■!■'/.,•;■::;■: ■;'/;.\t; :■'''/ ■: ■'/■.- Several : '. witnesses : gave, evidence tho v .... defendants.//:/;■;■/./■■ ' .■■'..■■;/;/':;■■■ ' '..:■■; • -//His Honour iheldXtb'at- there 'had. been ■an . :■"■ : ■ encrpachment. /.It could .not be!said, that the: ■'■ encroachniont.was intentional!' nor.'.was-it tho , '-■•'.-■; result of gross rnegliKenco.', Plaintiff .was'.en- . titled ■to some damage?;.-in,, addition! to . tho' ... value of the strip of,Tari3. -''TTie^assage-way :/■ was, in'_his ;opinion,, : not narrower now than /it was hitherto. Hβ assessed the amount of damages to be paid to plaintiff by (Jadbury ! /; Bros, at £25,/ and the'amount to be.paid by -. ■'■', the oentractors at 205..,' Costs on tho lowest . :'-. ■' scale,: v/ere , - allso allowed against ■ Cadbury. ..-;■/■ Bros;- c. r y, ;//';..■//;;.:://.!■'; •■ . •.-"■■•