FOURTH EDITION

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 497, 29 October 1928, Page 13

FOURTH EDITION

0O& SUIT GOES ON

RETAKES NEW TURN LEARY OPENS FIRE

, t w its filth day of hearing, the ; ■ Ibeatre case” is still exercis- \ attention of five barristers in j ’ Supreme Court. (orm i(iable mass of evidence, t technical, lias accumulated yet I is still much to be called for the : . i:e »ce. , . •' su jt is one in which Howard jjjjv Browne (Mr. .Leary), and " .«Vincent Mullenger (Mr. Finlay) ! i "’ i «eSUis damages from the New s**.Town Board (Mr. Northcroft) i «iliiani Stevenson and Son, con--3 (Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Inder). “*Sffs allege that the collapse of r ‘ e i beneath the theatre caused | J subsidence of a wall of a theatre, JS .«aitaunS its closing. rov H. P- Mays, clerk of works to Town Board, was examined at iiftb regarding the timbering of the :i rh*Mr. Finlay: If I had known the nel would have encountered heavy ntry I would have put in heavier aber. Pinus insignus is quite strong ;I WKness added that he believed the 11 was solely responsible for the coluse o£ the tunnel, and but for its rcsence there would have been no justice Blair: If you had seen a uriai coming you would have taken (ttfos to stop it? Witnes: You beteher! (Laughter.) John Dawson, civil engineer of 28 wars’ experience, said he was certain ,he collapse was caused by the presence of an unknown well. The conductors had timbered the drive in the *ual manner. To Mr. Finlay: I examined the tunnel iwe en four and live months after [He collapse. The fall indicated that Ibe limbering was unequal to the pressure. I do not think the collapse was the result of the failure of a set.

JUDGE INTERVENES The view I take from the evidence is far as it has gone, supplemented by my own inspection of the works, is mat the Umbering was sufficient in that country. In my opinion the olalntifla have not established negligence against the contractors,** said his Honbur in inquiring how many witnesses were yet to be called. After a short adjournment Mr. Finlay submitted legal argument to show that the contractors were liable not only for the lives of workmen, but for the safety of property above. The fact that the drive was to pass near a £7,000 building should increase the cure on the part of the contractors. His Honour: What worries me is whether the timbering had anything to do with the collapse. Mr. Leary asked why it was his Honour had been carefully shown portion* of the tunnel that had not collapsed, while other parts, he did not say by intent, he had not seen. Counsel contended that the broken timbers had been smuggled away. Why did not the deience produce the props from the collapse if they were strong? JOKE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD Regarding the theory that an old well was responsible for the colla-pse, Mr. Leary said that was a piece of expost facto ingenuity. A former owner of the subsided property who had lived in the district 40 years knew of no well. “It is a joke of the neighbourhood,” said counsel. “Tins on tho top to-day are at the bottom of the tunnel to-morrow.'* added Mr. Leary, holding up the tins and billies produced by the defence in support of the “well” theory. “These would have been rusted away in 40 years—in 10 years,” said counsel. “The fact is that the ladies and gentlemen of the neighbourhood have got rid of their rubbish down the fissures opened by the collapse of the tunnel.” (Proceeding.)