DAMAGES AWARDED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 271, 11 July 1932, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

COMPANY'S ACTION DESCRIBED AS HIGH-HANDED BY JUDGE. ACTION FOR TRESPASS. NAPIER, 'Friday. Judgment for the plaintiff was given in a reserved decision in the Suprem'e Court at Napier in the case heard hefore the Chief Justiee, Sir Miehael Myers, at Napier in May last, when Williaih Sherning proceeded against Amner's Lime Co„ Ltd., claiming damages arising ont of trespass. The parties in question owned adjoi'ning properties, and plaintiff alleged that the d'efendant company unaathorisedly entered upon his lands, cut down a number of growing trees, removed his boundary fence and made excavations in the soil. As a result the soil had been so weakened that a bank adjacent to a cliff had begun to crumble away, rendering his property liahle to slip, thereby endangering the residue of the land which had consequently greatly depreciated in value. Plaintiff claimed £50 as special damages, and £450 as general damages, and asked for an injunetion restraining the defendai^b company from further trespass. The defence claimed that the damage to the bank caused by the earthqualce was increased by the swaying of the trees, while deposits of soil' by plaintiff against th'e boundary line had endangered defendant's . property, there being a risk of it falling in. The defendant company had requested plaintiff to let them enter upon his property to cut down the . trees and remove portion of the cliff, which was in danger of falling, but permission was refused, Not Justified. In the course of his judgement, His Hononr said there was no doubt that the defendant company acted in ' a high-handed manner. Plaintiff was emphatic that nothing should be done until he had a chanee of talking it over with Mr. Amner, wllo promised that nothing would be done, it being arranged for them to meet on the following morning. Notwithstanding this promise, the defendant company proceed-ed with the work in the meantime. Trees were talcen out by the roots and the land cut back. His Honour stated that h'e made an inspection of the property in company with an independ'ent engineer, and applying the evidence as best he could he did not think that the defendant company had justified its trespass. The company seemed to have taken advantage of the plaintiff's absence from his home and against his will to do acts in breach of a promise made. His Honour added that h'e thought it highly probable that apart from the defendant company's interference the work would have been necessary at some time or other, but might not have become necessary for years. Plaintiff's section was of considerabl'e depth and he did not think he would suffer any serious loss by the deprivation of 12 to 15 feet of land accused by the splaying back of the bank, nor did he think that the value of the property would be seriously diminished. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £62 10s, which included £12 10s as special damages.