DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 50, 31 January 1885, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

YESTERDAY.

(Before His H^nor Judge Rawson). Blackinore v. Feilding Borough Council. Continuation of report :— Cross examined by Mr Hawkins : The witness only did what lie was told to do by the Borough Works Committee of whom Messrs Lethbridge and Chamber laiu were meiiibers. - They are not engineers. Plaintiff had a great "down" on him. : ■;:»:• ■■ > ■ ; . ■ Robert Langsheer deposed that he was employed by the Corporation, m 1883, aivi assisted thd witness, Green) to re-; ; pair the Wanvltik-street bridge' by plac- < <Wg facjnes and puddling the breastwork. \ J. M. Higgin, chemist, deposed that he had, as a member of the Council, .'inspected the bridge m August, 1883^ and . the repairs then made to the bridge which were rather extensive and properly done. Never saw a flood so high lU\ Feeding as the September one. He had e^amfuetf the bridge on many occasions before the flood, and believe Lyne'B evidonce as to its being qqt of repair to be incorrect. '■ Fih Lethbridge, farmer, sworn, said that he had resided at Fuilding for the last nine years. As one of the Works Committee of the Council he had inspected,fyoin time to time,the bridge m question and it was m efficient repair. By Mr Staite ; He had complained tp the Council of the unsafety of the bridge. Charles Bray deposed that he was a Civil Engineer,, and corroborated the former witness as to the bridge beiqg m repair. By Mr Hawkfnjj ; Ho had no diploma prior to being appointed Civil Engineer to the Road Board he was a contractor, He had no other qualification for assuming the term of Civil Engineer which had been forced upon him simply because ho had been appointed Engineer to the Board. He did not think the bridge could have been tethered except with strong gear. George 0. Hill deposed that he was Town Clerk of Feilding and was also a Civil Engineer. Had been emploj-ed specially by the Council for special engineering work, Was employed to report on the bridges m tho Feilding Borough, Reporte.l m 1882 that tho Warwick-street bridge was m a sound condition. The bridge itself remained sound up to tho flood. Tho approaches were alright for about a year afterwards when they were repaired. At eight o'clock on the morning of the 3rd Pept. last the approach of tlie bridge and earthwork were washed away and the bridge partially underwater. There being no appliances nt hand it. .vas not possihleto prevent the bridge beingwashed awayPid not see any debris m the stream. The bridge was never reported to him as irirsecure. Considered the approaches quite BiiflSicient to meet press of waletf ordinarily m the Mr.kino stream. By Mr Btftite: Cannot say m what condition the bridge was within a Jew weeks before the flood, Sq tap a* he knew the brjdgo was last repaired i« 1883. Did not anil was not aware thai any of the Councillors took steps to save the bridge, Ajj .ordinary high flood was.

anticipated but not such an extraordinary ' one as there was. I have a diploma. H. J. Lee, sworn said he had . seen a flood on the 7th November last, not so by as the September flood. Saw the water on the 7th November all round the back of plaintiffs house. Three parts ot the plaintiffs land was covered. By Mr Staite : Cannot say what part of the river the water came from. The water was not coming out of the . front part m November. H. L. Sherwiil deposed that knew Feilding for the last ten years. Never saw such a high flood m Feilding as the one on 3rd September. His opinion was that it was utterly hopeless to attempt to savo the bridge. Believed that the only reason why the bridge stopped m the creek upon the plaintiff's property was because of the willows the plaintiff had planted •m the creek. Plaintiff's land was much improved and was worth about £170. On -7th November the the water was going over both sides of the banks of the. stream right along plaintiff's section except m one spot. This concluded the evidence loir the defence. After counsel had addressed, the jury His Honor summed up the evidence at great length and directed the jury; that' the defendants were only liable to repair • the bridge as reasonable men would' have done to guard against ordinary and not extraordinary floods, and if the jury had any doubt -whether. tKe plaintiff had proved negligence on the part of the defendants the jury must give a verdict for them. The jury retired at half past four, o'clock and returned at twenty minutes to six o'clock with a verdict for the plaintiff for £40 with costs. £21 195, ■Mr Esam made application behalf: of the defendants for a new trial hi this case on. the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that, the verdict was defective inasmuch as the reasons for the, verdict being illogical and so mixed up the Court could not give any judgment upon it. An issue was put to the jury as to whether the defendants had kept the bridge hi reasonable repair. The evidence for the defence was quite conclusive that the bridge was m such state of repair and he (Mr Esam) asked whether.in the Judge's .opinion, the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and with regard to the finding of the jury relating to the 1 floods it was so involved that no judgment could >be logically .entered up. His Honor, the Judge, said that he . did not .think the verdict was defective, the finding of the 'ury was perfectly intelligible to him and he saw no reason to disturb the verdict. He therefore refused the application. Chas. Trickiebank v. Win. Crabtree & Son: Claim £200. ' The plaintiff claimed damages by reason of the defendants not delivering and erecting a certain drain tile-pipe-making machine hi a workmanlike manner, according to contract, whereby the plaintiff lost the price of such machine and the profits which would otherwise have accrued to him if the machine had been delived as agreed. Messrs R. Johnston, J. S. Jolly, Jaa; Kibblewhite, and T. T. Kerslake were empanneled as a jury. . Chas. Tricklebank deposed that he had been a briokniaker since he was five years aid. Tile making is part of the business. Contracted m the year 1880 with defendants to make him a tile-pipe making machine fit for making pipes from one foot to 3 inches m diameter to be driven by hand and steam and ereoted upon his land at Palmerston North. The price was to be £95t The machine was gent by defendants to, me at Palmerston and one of the defendants saw him at Pahnefston and received. two .or'- three pounds cash to pay the freisrnt. The machine was then put on the >yitness' land. Subsequently he paid defendants , £4Q. Found that the "machine was very defective and unfit for the work for which it was intended. It was dangerous to. work. There ' were many parts of the inacliine never supplied by defendant. He signed bills on the purchase money an the understanding' that the machine. WQuld be completed. "When jn. Wellington fanr QV ftve months after and saw senior defendant and' had conversation . about the machines and about the bills. Defendant then said he knew that' the shaft m the machine was too weak and it he (plaintiff) gave him twenty pounds, they would cry " quits." Before j this a Steel sbftft had been prqeureot by him (plaintiff) from Robertson,' 'engineer, Wellington which cost £10. Haye paid several sums on account of the machine. There was a sum of £20 paid to Mr Perkins, solicitor, as agent far defendants. He would not have paid that sum hut for tb,e express purpose of Mr Perkins that the defendants would put the machine m thorough working order. Have paid altogether on account of the machine to defendants £124 Is. The machine was useless,being too' weak. Could make pipes better by hand than with tile'machine. ■■: [Left Sitting.] '. \ ■ BANKRUFTGV OASES. Bankruptcy closed and accounts filed —William Crawford, G. S. Hadfield, John Morris, James Morris. Public examinations. declared closed—' H. T. Polensky, John M. Broughton, J. H. Topping, George Marsh, C. L. Mac Lean, Frederick Beaven, Archibald , Henderson, James T. Davis, C. R. Skelly, Thomas "Smith, D. E. ■ Ames, bury. • - •.;•...'.. Discharges granted— JEL T, P-qlensky, G. S. Hadfield, Q, .&. Ma.oL.eani J, H. pq.pn, Archibald Henderson, H. J. Haynes, Francis Brady. Re John Poad — The Deputy Assignee applied for the direction of the Court as the petition prayed that both partners of Poad and Brazier be adjudicated bankrupts on the petition of John Poad. only. After hearing the solicitor for debtor- |lW proceedings were declared (fflOTUed, R.e J,H, TQPp.teg-=A. claim of £154 far- wages put hi by Henry Gardes was. alipwed and Deputy Assignee ordered to reoeive claim,. ;