DISTRICT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 53, 13 February 1869, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before his^Honour -Mr. Justice Gray.) Wedaesday, l i'ebruarj 10. JpKn Parrar charged the several claimholders on Blue 'Spur with haying, through their water and tailings,, ' caused his business premises to be flooded, thereby renderiing'them valueless. „ Damages .claimed, ,^6150. Mr. Bichards appeared for. "plaintiff, Messrs. Keen, and Mouat for defeii--gants.. Jtfessrs^,, KrrJ)j.^and;. Bently appeared .jperebjoaily "to ."represent the xespectiye companies... .'-."' > '[ The plaintiff adduced in evidence .'. ■ that .the site cox < wjbich*ie erected a building, which was opened eti abil-Jiard-roQm, was purchased in 1864;

that" thß~BaKrerfiite.i^ad ßomebld build- 1 ings jhad cost £i 4":165.,; and that iron | -laiid^otTier materials we're 'purcnased to . enlarge the building to the amount of £60 ; that tnrsame building and bil-liard-table were let for £8. per month in 1864/ and in -January, 1868, the rental was £5 per month. The plaintiff further endeavoured to prove that i v in consequence pf.the apts, of the deu fendantr the' site and property were so damaged as to be almost valueless. That the, tailings ,had so accumulated as to block "up the water of the creek, flooding the premises, thereby rendering ingress and egress a matter of difficulty, unless by boat, v which loss and damage he estimated at'£lso. j Mr. Keen, for his clients, endeavored j to prove that, however valuable the premises and .site -.were at one time, they were no longer so. After the .various licenses »had bteen produced, he pointed out tot-the.vCourt that from July, 1868, to October 21, 1868 — over a' period of three months, — the plaintiff had not covered bis premises toifchH&e .-necessary license,- and therefore for that period he ' was illegally occupying Government land ; and when he had, on the 21st October, renewed his , title, he could only claim, damages since that period. Mr. Keen further endeavoured to prove that the plamtifi* had renewed his right for the sole purpose of ' qualifying himself to aue the defendants, as he had done that day. He called witnesses to prove the value of the building and site as at present situated, who gave evidence that the 'building was worth from £55 to £58 ; and that, the cost of removal- would >be from £21 to £25, according to the distance of removal. He* further produced evidence from respectable witnesses that the place, i independent of tne {injury done it by .defendants j w;as ,totalfy unsuited,for a. billiard-table, as the population had mostly left the locality, and that it was impossible to make a paying business* • - Mr. "Mouat, on behalf of Morrison and Co., contended that his clients had not contributed any share in the damage said to have been sustained, as, in the first place, the water and tailings of his clients had been going in a different direction from the plaintiff's premises ; and secondly, that the water from their tailrace was taken possession of by other parties and if there was any liability those parties were responsible ; and as his clientshad not contributed to the damage, they claimed to be. exempt from, any liability. Mr. Bently contended, for his party, that, as Morrison and party were charged for the same offence, it was not possible to make two parties pay for the same damage. He stated that their tailings and tail water were sent up the gully due north, whereas the plaintiffs claim was - due South ; and from the" distance between, itt was almost impossible for them to have contributed to any portion of the damages. Mr. Kirby, for his party, contended ! that,- as Ins claim- .was Ihe lowest down i the gully, he could not see that his party could have had anything to do with the damage, as water would not flow naturally from a lower to a higher [ level: ' His Honour remarked that he was firmly of opinion that all had contributed to the damage more or less ; and lie was satisfied that it was a case for damages. ■ After summing up, he gave, verdict for plaintiff, damages, £45., to be ..contributed pro rota. His Honour said they had better settle it among themselves as to their respective liabilities, as he had a doubt whether he could, apart from the verdict^ legally apportion each man's share. : ' [ The parties, having conferred, came to the conclusion, to appoint arbiters for the purpose, if his JBtonour would aid as umpire, -which was granted. I £4 costs were allowed the ' plaintiff. I — = .