DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2269, 12 July 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, July 11. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] ROWLEY V GREIG AND HUNTEB.

This was a claim for £SO damages for injury done to plaintiff’s land and fences by an excavation made by defendants on an adjoinin'- section

Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Garrick for defendants.

Joseph Rowley, the plaintiff, deposed that defendants made an excavation to a depth of nine feet for a cellar without supporting his land. A crack about 18 inches wide was caused, and three feet of his land hung over. His fence, a 5 feet paling one, was broken, and the earth and shrubs fell into the excavation, The property was situated in Sydenham, and he estimated the loss he had sustained by defendants’ action at upwards of £IOO.

By Mr Garrick—The wall of the building was now put up and it protected his land. He objected to the defendants' men replacing the soil, as they were throwing in l umps of clay. Sir Davis, licensed surveyor, corroborated plaintiff’s evidence as to damage sustained. Alexander Lean and Brightling gave evidence to the effect that the damage sustained was not extensive.

Other witnesses deposed that £5 would make all the damage good. Counsel having addressed the Court, Judgment was given for plaintiff for £2O and costs. WOOD, SHAND AND CO. V CONGDBN.

This was an action for £2OO, for unnecessary delay in the delivery of poods ex Abernyte, consigned to plaintiffs. Mr Garrick, for plaintiffs; Mr Peroival, for defendant.

James Shand, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that Wood, Shand and 00. claimed certain casks of cement by the Abernyte. Edwards, Bennett and 00. were agents for the vessel, which entered inwards about June Ist last. They ought to have received the goods by the middle of Juno, but it was not until the 27th or 28th of the month that the last was delivered. The delay caused them to buy several lots to supply orders, resulting in a loss.

John Beaumont, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that their actual loss by buying second hand was £l6 10s.

Captain McClatchie deposed that on Juno 20th Captain Congden ordered him to take r.o more cargo out of the Abernyte until he received "stiffening,” which was not alongside until June 29th. It would not have been safe to have taken out the cement until tha ballast was there to replace it. By Mr Percival—The average time for discharging a vessel of the size of the Abernyte would be from twenty-five to thirty days. John Beaumont recalled, stated that between June 20th and 28th his firm had to purchase 200 casks of cement to supply orders, their loss on which was £l2 10s.

Captain Congden gave evidence to the effect that it was customary to detain a certain quantity of dead weight cargo, as ballast, till some of the outward cargo was available. Kinsay, shipping agent for Edwards, Bennett and Co., at Lyttelton, stated that when he heard that Wood, Shand and 00. wanted their cement, he did all he could to expedite its delivery. Counsel having addressed the Court, his Honor gave a verdict for £l2 10s and costs of one witness. Tuedsay, July 12. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] MOLYNBAUX AND OTHERS V JAMBS HAY. This was a claim of £ll7 3s, amount of loss and damage done to plaintiff’s property, at Pigeon Bay, by a fire caused as sieged through the negligence of defendant, on or about the 21st day of March, 1881. Mr Button for plaintiff. Mr Harper for defendant.

In opening the plaintiff’s case, Mr Button explained that the action wrs taken by John Molyneaux, H. Goodwin and A. Goodwin, ai trustees under the wiU of tbe late E. Goodwin. The defence was a denial of a 1! the material allegations, especially that of negligence on the part of defendant. The following evidence was then taken :

Price Goodwin deposed that he wes brother of the Messrs Goodwin cocosrned in the prssent action. The maps produced tmthfully represented the lay of the covnt.y, with whicn he (witness) was well acquainted. Mr Hay occupied the school resei va marked on the map, and that gentleman also occupied other sections indicated. [Witness then described the position of Goodwin’s properly with relation to other land shown on the map.] On the morning of the 21at March he wrs in Pigeon Pay, at Home’s Point, and saw smoko rising over the hiU marked on the plan. It was between 9 and 10 o’clock. [Position of plaintiff’s farm and sections burnt described.] When witness returned at night the fire had spread over a great portion of the farm. He estimated the damage done on ground in crop at about 10s per acre. In addition to the grass, &8., a quantity of posts and ra'li, some hundred cords of firewood, and timber for building purposes were destroyed, [The items making up the claim were enumerated, including charges for repairs, end labor rendered necessary by damage through the fire.] In cross-examination by Mr Harper, the witness stated that he had on different occasions burnt bush on his own lend. It was customary to burn bush at Pigeon Bay. The Hays and his family were neighbors. They (his brothers) rented a piece [of land (about thirty acres) from Mr Hay. Did not know of any arrangements between the parties to burn the wood off for the purposes of clearing. The witness was further crossexamined at considerable length in relation to the terms of tho agreement between Goodwin and Hay touching the reserve. Henry Goodwin said he was one of the plaintiffs, and one of the trustees under his father’s will. Remembered the morning of tho 21st March. At about nine o’clock bis brother Edward directed his attention to smoko issuing over the b'll. They both started to see what was tho cause. They both came over tho hill by the north -west corner, section 10905, and saw a man lighting fires on the dividing line between sections 10909 and 10906. Recognised Mr J. Hay, the defendant, and asked him what ho was trying to do—did he intend to roast them out. Hay made no answer at tho time. Witness remarked that there wore bullocks in the bush, and Hay said they would clear out. Witness then returned to bis premises, by which time the fire had spread considerably. The remainder of the witness’s evidence went to show the extent of tho fire end damage sustained, being a corroboration of the testimony given by his brother. Some of their sections were mortgaged, but he con'd not say which. James Pitcarthby being questioned as to the cause of the damage to plaintiff’s property, said he had no doubt whatever that the fire came from tho reserve occupied by Hay. It was highly imprudent to light a fire on such a day when there was a high wind blowing, i [Left sitting ]