CIVIL CASES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 975, 16 November 1910, Page 5

CIVIL CASES.

;..;/. DISPUTED AGREEMENT. ' : ■', :'.OVEE' A FOXTON PROPERTY. ■Ini the Supreme Court yesterday, before .Mr. Justico Cooper, Hearing was boritimied of a case affecting tbe ownership of an area of -land adjoining iWhyte's Hotel, at Foxton. Plaintiffs ; were Frederick Spencer Easton, of Foxton, farmer, and.Barbara Ellen Austin, executrix of the will .of Herbert Austin, late of Foxton, flaxmiller,. deceased. John: Rainbow .Stansell, of ; Shannon, - auctioneer, was defendant. Mr. H. S. Trcadwell appeared for - the';plaintiffs, and Mr. S. Menteath for tbe defendant.... ]■' .. The action concerns a : contract, entered into in. August, 1905, under which defendant agreed to sell, with the consent of the late Herbert Austin, to tho plaintiff, F. S. Easton, Wbyte's Hotel, and' the land oh which it stands, for a sum of £6000. Some difficulty arose in regard to tho description of tho -allotment. Plaintiffs, who-are now in possession of the hotel and an area of about.four and a quarter acres of land,' claim that under the ori2inal agreement they, are entitled to an additional area adjoining, comprising 1 acre 1 rood ; 24 perches.. They asked the Court to . order a.,rectification of the agreement by tho inclusion of a proper description of the land affected. Plaintiffs claimed £200 as damages, or, in the. event of it being out of defendant's power to mako specific performance, the sum of £501 . ; ivas:c]aimed as damages. .Mr. Menteath, introducing evidence /or the defence, stressed the point that Mr. Stansell, when he disposed of tho property, had in his mind that it was ■ divided under, two titles. The property on wllich the hotel stood comprised about four acres, after deducting a roadway. As a matter of fact, the title '..-'■,. of ■ the land which tho plaintiffs' had got. comprised about four and a quarter . acres. . After hearing evidence for. tho de- ■ fence, his Honour announced that he would reserve judgment. BONTRACTOR AND CORPORATION. ■■; '■/ DAMAGES AWARDED. ; Mr. Justico Cooper yesterday gave his reserved judgment in tho case John O'Donnoll v. the Pohangina County Council. O'Donnell is a coritractor who ' claimed £230 Bs. lid., balance alleged io be due on a contract to buiid a bridge for the defendant corporation.] JEvjdfiJHia in. t.bo ca&Q g?as taken be^

fore Mr..Justice Cooper at tlie recent Circuit sittings in l'almerstou North and questions of law were argued before tlio samo Judgo at Wellington en November 12. At tlio hearing Mr. A. Gray, and with him Mr. A. Fair, appeared for' the plaintiff, and Mr. J. I'. Innos for, the defendant corporation. . In delivering judgment liis Honour stated,, inter alia, that in the month of June, 1908, tlio defendant corporation 1 entered into a contract with the plain- ' tiff for the construction of a bridge i over: tho Pohangina River. The coni tract provided that defendants should make all-.necessary excavations at the East end of the bridge, except for concrete. On July 6 and 7, 1908y tliero was a heavy rainfall with the result that a big landslip came down. Tho > staging erected by defendant, in per- - formance 'of his contract, was destroyed and some of Ms gear and tools were buried; Further performance of tho contract was suspended by tho defendants and work was not resumed for nine months. Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to be reimbursed for the damage caused. by ' the slip.. Dealing w-itli the causes that led to tho slip, his Honour stated: that there was a flat paddock above the road overlooking tlio bridge, belonging to a Mr. Hunt. On this there was a reservoir and also water- furrows through the land, intended to carry water to the road. On July 7 both reservoir and furrows were, full of water. The county foreman ob-tained-permission "to tap this water in order to clear debris off the road and also to' clear off a portion of tho hill above tho road which had some time ' before started to-slip. Much of tho water was discharged into crevices cf the 'hill. This .water, combined with the rainfall, caused the damage, complained of. His Honour declared himself satisfied that the .evidence sufficed to establish the liability of tlie defendant corporation for tho damage caused by the slip. Their action,, in discharging the water had made the slip inevitable. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff , with damages £51 18s. for loss of gear,, £33, 2s. 6d., for loss. of. staging, and £22 ss. by way of compensation for undue, suspension of contract, total £107 os. 6d. In addition, costs were awarded' on the lowest scale and one day extra £15 155., and Court fees arid witnesses' expenses to be ascertained' by. the Registrar of the Court.