DAMAGE TO BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 694, 20 June 1929, Page 13

DAMAGE TO BRIDGE

DISPUTE AS TO CAUSE CONTINUES CLAIM AGAINST FIRM ftegal discussion on the alleged liaJ>HRy of the Kauri Timber Company Jn the destruction of a bridge continued before Mr. Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court today. Thames Borough and Thames County (Mr. Julius Hogben) are claiming £2,767 from the Kauri Timber Company (Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. J. B. Johnston) for damage to the Kauaeranga bridge in the May, 1924, flood. Plaintiffs claimed that the greater part of the bridge had been swept away,'because the company's logs battered the structure and broke loose a metal-laden barge, which completed destruction. Saying that, assuming it was established that the damage had been done j by the defendant company’s logs, the plaintiffs had no right of action, Mr. I Johnston urged nonsuit on the grounds i that the ownership of the bridge was vested in the Crown, and neither 'of the plaintiff bodies was under obligation to repair. No operation of the company had caused damage. Evidence for the company was to the effect that, during three hours at the bridge at the height of the flood, only two kauri logs came down. The logs which broke away would take one and a-half to two hours to reach the bridge. Six residents said that a barge had carried the bridge away. ENGINEER’S EVIDENCE ' Ernest Teltus Adams, civil engineer, said that In 1919 the decking of the old bridge was rotten in places, the outside stringers were badly weatherworn. “There is not one title of evidence that the bridge was damaged until the heavy barge hit it,” saijl Mr. Johnstone this morning. "It was most possible that there was not the slightest evidence regarding the logs. And it was thought necessary to wait four and a-half years until the claim was advanced. The bridge, for a long time unsafe, had withstood the onslaught of logs for years. For the purposes of this case, it was of course necessary to establish that the logs did the damage. There has been evidence that the barge was moored in an unsafe position. How the barge ropes were broken has not been explained. DUTY OF COUNCIL Dealing with the nonsuit points raised by Mr. Johnston, Mr. Hogben said that, under the Act, the duty of repair or reconstruction was placed on the Thames Borough Council. He criticised the points raised by the company’s counsel, and mentioned evidence telling how the bridge was struck by logs. There was uncontradicted evidence that the bridge actually collapsed before it was struck by the barge. (Proceeding.)