DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2577, 11 July 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, July 11. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] BPEEBY V W- B. AND G. EHODES, Claim £166 15s 7d, amount of property tax alleged to be due. Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Q-arrick for W. Rhodes. Mr Garrick stated that ho was instructed from Wellington to appear on behalf of the representatives of the late W. B. Rhodes, deceased. He believed Mr G. Harper would appear for Mr R. H. Rhodes, who was willing to pay. He wished to know how his Honor would act in the matter, Mr Joynt would accept a judgment against Mr R. H. Rhodes only. His Honor said that Mr B. H, Rhodes was not one of the defendants, Mr Joynt called attention to the assessment notice, which bore the names of W. B. and G, Rhodes, per B. H. Rhodes, three individuals —viz, W. R. Rhodes, B. H. Rhodes and Gao. Rhodes. His Honor pointed out that the document could also be read as meaning only two persons. Mr Joynt would submit that it was not so. Ho would put Mr Sperry in the box to prove this if needed, Mr Garrick explained that there had been a firm called W. H. and G. Rhodes. William and George Rhodes were both dead. He submitted that Mr Harpsr could not accept se! vice on behalf of one of the firm, as the writ was issued against the firm. Mr Joynt differed. Mr Garrick submitted that the writ was not properly addressed. Mr Joynt contended that his learned friend had no locus standi, Mr Garrick thought hia learned friend wen too late in his objection. After further contention, His Honor did not see how he could refuse to give judgment against R. H, Rhodes es Mr Harper bad admitted. Judgment would bo given by consent against B, H. Rhodes. EEKOE V CHBIBTOHUBCH DBAINAGB BOARD.

Claim £IOO, for damages done to plaintiff's property by the action of the Board. Mr Button, for the plaintiff, contended that the Board had no right, in clearing their drains, to place a nuisance on the land of private individuals. His position was that the action was in excess of the powers of the Board. Mr Garrick would contend that it was the duty of the contractor employed by the Board to remove debris that was offensive, and that, therefore, the defendants were not liable. He did not admit that the debris had been so loft. He understood it had been removed. Mr Button contended that the defence was not good. He would pat in a letter from the Drainage Board, admitting tt at the person clearing out the drains was the servant of the Board. | Letter put in.] For the plaintiff, Mr Button called — Edward Breoe, the plaintiff, who deposed that he was the owner of property at Sydenham, through which Jackson’s Creek passes ; that on or about March 21st he noticed that the filthy scum from the creek had been placed on the bank of the creek on his land, canting an offensive smell. It was hot ncr ■ weet weather and caused his family to suffer i i health. Cross examined by Mr Garrick —The smell of the filth was bad enough to poison a regiment of soldiers. The filth was mixed with willow cuttings. By his Honor —He owned the land on both i sides of the creek

IBS-examined —The creek ws* now turned into a filthy sewer. George Goodman deposed—That he wai groom and gardener to Mr Beeoe. He remembered the 21st March. About that time two men came and trimmed some willows, and threw them with a lot of sickly smelling aoum, that made him feel very siok It smelt for a week, after which the wind dried it up. Dr, Frankish deposed—That on the day subsequent to the creek being cleaned out, he saw the debris on the bank, which smelt offensively ; and such matter, exposed to the sun, was detrimental to health, and even when dried would give out disease germs. Several residents in the neighborhood were prejudicially affected by it, as also weio the members of Mr Boeoe’s family. . . , It was admitted by Mr Garrick that the ditch was cleared out by the contractors to the Board. . . Patrick Carr, the contractor in question, deposed—That whether overhanging branches interfered with the flaw of water or not, he thought he had to out theni. He out the willows on Jackson’s creek. _ Some of the cuttings fell into the creek, which he threw out with a hay fork. No scum adhered to them. The creek was not offensive. He could live in it. . Mr W. Vincent, a member of the Drainage Board, remembered a letter on this matter. He went to the spot with the eng naer about tho 28th March, and found only a few twigs, but no offensive matter. The creek was also clear. C. N. Bell, engineer to the Board, corroborated tho evidence of tho previius witness. This was all the evidence. Learned counsel then addressed the Court. His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for £3 3s, and costs. EDWABDS V OLABIC. Mr Thomas stated that this case had been settled out of Court.