SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3961, 4 November 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, November 1. (Before Mr Justice Williamß and Messrs James Gore and R. A. Lawson, assessors.)

D. Proudfoot v. The Hon. E. Richardson, Minister op Railways, and Thomas Calcctt, Government Agent. — Claim for compensation for a quarry being rendered unworkable by a railway lino being taken through it. His Honor gave judgment in this case as follows: The award of the Court is that the sum of L 5.250 be paid to plaintiff in respect to his leasehold inteiest taken by defendants, and the sum of L 550 in respect to his freehold interest taken. Plaintiff will be entitled to taxed costs so long as the taxed costs do not exceed— Mr Haggitt: I submit, your Honor, that by the 34th section of the Immigration and Public Works Act a plaintiff is not entitled to costs when the amount awarded is less than onesixth of the amount claimed. Mr Stout: There is no amount claimed in this action. Mr Smith : A claim is put in by plaintiff, amounting to L 05,131 16s (id, and throughout the proceedings this was clearly understood to lie the claim. Mr Stout: I would point out that in the letter to the Government there is no claim mentioned. Mr Smith: I need only refer to plaintiff’s own evidence, I understood that LOS, 134 16s Gd was claimed or nothing. Mr Stout: Well, say nothing. His Honor : I think there is no doubt from the affidavit put in that there was a distinct claim. It contains the expressions “my loss,” and “ my claim.” Mr Stout: 'The claim was only stated in the summons, and 1 submit that the amount claimed there must be that claimed beforethe.se proceedings commenced. - His Honor: I am quite satisfied that this affidavit shows a claim of L 95,134 16s GJ, and costs will therefore go as the Act provides.