THE WAITARA RIVER CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 28 May 1907, Page 2

THE WAITARA RIVER CASE.

.ICDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Mr. \Y. G. Riddell, delivered judgment yesterday in the Waitara case, Williamson v. Borthwick and Sons, Ltd., The facts were that the plaintiff owned I shed and staging built in a shallow bend on the foreshore of the Waitara I'iver. between the wharves of the defendant company ami the Jlarbor Board. On (lie ISIIU February last the servants of the defendant company, were towing three empty barges by means of a winch on Hie steamer Manukau from defendant's wliarf to that of lie llarbor Board. The barges were substantially built, and carried about SO tons each. Empty, they were thawing about three feet, and stood

seven or eight feel out of the water. The tide was two hours from full, there was a slight fresh in the river, and there was a moderate wind from the northeast, blowing across the stream. During their towage the barges were carried to leeward, and came into contact with the plaintiff's shed, which fell iuto the river and was lost, with its contents. Plaintiff said thi' accident was due to the negli-

»enee of the defendant's servants, and ••laiuud CIOU damages. The defendant denied negligence, and said the shed was a nuisanee, being on the foreshore without proper authority; that as a mcmbei of the public he bad a right of navigation over all part* of the river; and that pkunJiir's shed was so weakly built that it was unable to stand the ordinary impact <w a vessel touching it. That part of Hie foreshore was under the control »f the Waitara Harbor Board, which gave plaintiff permission to erect a Miioke house on lite bank and a breastwork for vessels. No plans were laid before the Marine Department, ns required by section 150 of the "Harbors Act, 1878.'' The harbormaster said that as tiie sii»'d was not a permanent structure, as it had to be removed whenever the Hoard gave notice to that eil'cet. and for that reason compliance with seelion !.")() was not considered necessary. 'I hat llie public had at common law a right of navigation over all parts of a navigable river was* laid down in certain •uses. (Authorities cited.) No com- , plaints seemed to have been made that 'plaintiffs shed impeded the navigation of the river, or made it more difficult or dangerous: yet as the provisions of the "Harbors' Act" had not been complied with, Hi-, X.M. thought the staging and shed were unlawfully on the foreshore, j and he could at any time have been reijuireil mi remove them, although he was in occupier with some color of right. l>ut whether the property was unlawfully plact'd (hero or not, the plaintiff had iwiiv s, if, through tlic negligence of defendant's servants the property was uijured or destroyed. The weight of cvidetice was that there was a strong wind blowing, Defendants were !nv, 11 hi a gicater number of barges Ih:in usual, and wore using a new means 'if towage, vi,:., bv winch, instead of bv hand. There, was no steerage war oil 'lie barges. and they eonld not lie guided Ironi the winch. There was nothing in counteract the force of the wind driving the barges to leeward except the null's lII' I lie men oil board, and these were efi'.'r!ive only in shallow water. I'hat defendants did not anticipate any dillhnltv was shown that they took no precautions beyond those they would have taken under ordinary conditions, ''"he evident 1 " showed that when the barges shuck there was ,1 <ti«Wiir of timber. 'I he S.M. was of ; < ;o iU:>i tin in oael was consider., ! M'.iter liian was slated by the . ,i R >

karoos. and was the main oi lie found that Ihe d.'l'ein! inks' ■o-nunk, did iv ' lake rc:isonaWc |>re caul ions to prrvciii the lmn;cs colliding will) 111.' >-hcd and (ail-ill': lh • d:m:i:;o '•onipfwied ol'. As lo (he amount i.f ■ hum;:!... I ill- -evidence showed that (lie oieinliii' siioiild have inndi' all allcnijd salve the building. as it sloml inlnol i'.r :-oiii" d:;ys allcr Ike aci'dcnf, bill H I v-t.s ilidicuK lo i-ay whether any pari, of Hi" goods could have keen salved. lie I knight the evidence snllicieiil. to show that Ihe goods chiiiucd were in the shed He allowed C(i tor (lie lishing lines, and III" Values claimed for the other items: Wool hales, potatoes., kerosene and fim;.'!is. til ."is Cd: tank and pump. c.'i. lie lixed ilie value of the building al l>«t deducted l.'o. its estimated '.aim' afler I lie accident lost (hroiedi plaintiff's liefjlect lo attempt salvage. ■ 'u.lgiiicnt was tor plainlill for <MG •id. court costs Xi j s , solicitor's fee £2 I*. an I wi'i'.'sse.,'expenses.