SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 614, 17 September 1909, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

| \ A DAIRY COMPANY'S STABLE. j t PROVED A NUISANCE 1 I■{.i--''He»ring^as' r the case j I : , ,claimed Irom the , i Wellington ' Dairy Company,; Ltd.,- the sum , P br ° u ?J", c f: ■ : abtrafr: by tho, Mistcnco. of ; a stablo on tlio ■' ; ' defendant company's .properly, adjoining two [ - ' resideiiceßOWUpd- by plr.mtilt. Plamtiu also ! asked for an .injunction restraining tho <!o----i • fdritlnrit 'company from using, tho/st&blo 1 so. as , tb'/'contihuo : the-: alleged nuisance. V The case I - was /heard ,by . Mr. Justico Chapman, .and a t ''special'/jury.'of./twelvo.vof whom Mr.: William .'.' iVrgusori was/foreman. • . • • ,- • . > ■■■."■: K'Mrj-H. IV Johnston appeared for plaintiil, aiid.Jlr. 1 A. Blair for tho defendant company, ; .;- -'/It'was stated by; plaintiffthat \her two cot- . .tnfees.at'fj-l and 5G Elizabeth Street, . were "V"a- Iroiiriost.'unlottablo' ;becanw .of their proximity 'V" 'to -:the stablei/ Tho smell,.'especially during v.th§i; summeri Vcombincd. .Trithltho rattio ofrtho - inilkhearts: and. cans," and;tho shouting of; tho . 1 ■ L '.'v.. mo'ii, :;had become; intolerable .to plaintiff and ' her:-tenants. v. v*. - alWidenca for the defence was concluded yesV- - -Nterdiiy. The company deniedthatany nuisance i■' -'- or'discomforfc had /been causcd to .plaintiff..or ~ j to ..her tenants. Thcro might bo. >'■;!: ■ inevitably * connected ? with- - any ': stable,. but' it '. jtrentioiisly.: denied that: any .nuisance ; had, , [i; '.'f/ beeii I '. caused.to; occupiers of tho adjoining proE v' pefties.'-Tho stable; was so-constructed/as to [ i': A'r Jfreytent anything of /the kind, and a brick, wall I: V ; 18,*.;inches'i thickVseparated r : ,it . from plaintiff's 1 i : house.'- To this latter statement, plaintiffre- {..-; :, i, ;:plieS:'that .' the ,defendant . company had exca- }. . vated under the wall, and part of it had been f ' f 'Tiho'cWd -down, rsb. that,horses .continually -came . ■' : ?:thrbiifeh.into', plaintiff's garden.,;,'/v ; ; ; .=) > ' Tho jury retired at -2.30' p.m., and,. ! after [ l :-';;V ; htwenty-iiTe.->:''iiiinutos' ;'deliberation, . returned; f- .with' a'-verdict .for tho, /plaintiff,';whoin ;they" t '. 'awarded '£101 damages.•" ■. - - /; ,'-/,>Th6 Court allowed . costs,' and. issued a certi--1 .. fioato for ;a j special; jury,directing' that tho l;- ;;-! matter of tho injunction should bo referred, to' i latfr. I CUIM AGAIXST CITY QOTTNCIL. 1 A' DARK NIGHT AND A BROKEN ARM ii;; i■ .'/'A-.'ciairtefof•'datfiaKM^n'gairistVthe City Council f . eamd-beforo Jfr. Justice Chapman and a.com- ) : :: nibn jury, of; four yesterday atternoou. Thomas f:' ! Ignatius,;/Yourelle, -.draughtsman,' olaimcd. '<eBl j ; 'ly3^as.'.special/daniagek,■ and JE2SO as'; gen-, ! .V; t ' : .* eral;;damages,. for injuries'he. had [ ■r'f. mght;through falling into a holo in tho street Called the 'Parade, at Island ; Bay. i; Grayfand; Mr;'.o'Hegan : appeared for tho; : ; L plaifltiß, and J[r. Skorrctt. K.C., with hiin.Mr. ?; J;; - o,'Sheai (City .Solicitor),' for' tho defendant cor- .. } '/' potation. ... ' • -• W/- , V.if i- ;'»lh-- the of 'claim,''plaintiff alleged | : ..i that.;.the .c'Ouncil;< ; a'vharrel . 'drain; invAfoh;Sheet,' -Islapd.Bay,;had omitted., to;-filli-properly'ran'I'excaTation. in'the'Parade'. :t?;;; Soil'-had:; been; eroded /by; l .the, ' . weather, aad this part of tho streot was made v..-- : dahgerous and unsafo. On the night of Saturi'; d.'iy,/January 23, .plain tift fell into - the hole', ; |; J:,;. "■ i- riml;,BUataincd a fracturo of; his left arm.' and other.i . injuries, , in consequence of ; which' he . : ;■ wns'.whoDy incapacitated, and;'lost his salary. , for.'-, tiro . months, 13?. Id., and ,was put' to '10 expense: of X3D forßurffical .and.- medical' : i acti;ndance, ; aud had .'suffered" serious disahle&V it; thO; permaheht sbortehing of his arni;' The Jjinjuries; ''havo,;:happened : 3n ; cdnMquonco (1): of tile dangerous condition J of : ,the ; street .called ■ the' (2)' of the coun- !;; J'V ' , ;Cil sf negligence uh omitting . to; fiU-'in'the'ioxea-' f4 ' '■;■'.iTSf? r . P lnce 5 any protection -round/it, 'and (3);.0f their failing to light/and: keep lighted - ' ail;electric lamp• close, to the hole. '. ' ' •W?®i.^^4®M^ r P®™yon'':;admitM',that';'a. :'v 'W of the' bank of'tho creek .in: the ' I Parade took place near the drain, but denied f j that.there was any hole in tho highway It ' KaSj denied, also,, that -tho erosion - was - caused •3 , by\negligence, or' that it rendered the Parade 'v . 1 :;-;-: W?R e rons;-and',/unsafe.: . The corporation?said ! , :• that.;the erosion;,was duo to tho, natural /'How i; : •: °f. r surface t water from';the Parade in ': wet ' , . weather. It denied that any injuries happened ;t • to,iplaintiff, as the result oi nSgligence, and it 1 - . - JJ'rther. denied ■ that'- .thero/ was / any 'duty .on ii:?/■' 'corporation :to'i light andkeep - • /.- . lighted any electric lamp.. As a second defence, /;. i'/.tft® Mjrporation:; said that .it' /was; under/ 110 ¥ r:- -::- I l.?"!' l .ty..tO' repair / tho:- erosion/ /-and •w'ast-in ~n 6; iT«?Pfc t ;iliahlo':;for/ianyi',injnry or damage ' "/■ ' Py , jt. 'As a third .defcilce,: tho cor- ■ :. ; ;; poration said _tlmt, 'if; plaintiff/'siisuiihed^iii-'; 3W, c s on Uio Parade, the injuries were caused The heilng of evidence for. the plaintiff f- : ,'.:'? v. s . n ,7. concluded when. the Court adjourned. ' Wi \s •niade ; by tho:-.jury: to tho scene > {>the • ;v-: