CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2203, 29 May 1908, Page 2

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

Judgment- was delivered in the Magistrate s Court yesterday mornin< r by Mr AAV A. Barton, S.M., in t-lio ease in which Amelia Catherine Neill proceeded against AValter James. »ykes to recover £56 Is 10 for damages alleged to have been caused by defendant allowing water to overfrom his premises to those of the ■' .Judgment was as follows: ~ ihiutil claims to recover from the defendant damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff through the defendant allowing water to percolate from his surgery to the simp i ■ ls admitted that the ft®" 1 * 1 ? F' aS „ su F er ®d some damage tluou fa h tlle hood of water from defendant s surgery, situate above the amf iw of plaintiff, and that the defendant would not be icsponsiblo, without- evidence of ne- ' g Igenco; and it was agreed that the question as to whether such damage was or was not caused through negligence on the part of defendant should be settled beforo callin'' any evidence as to the value of the damage complained of. It has been suggested that some person entered the surgery after the. defendant left and turned on the tap, but there is no evidence in support of that-sug-gestion. 1 am of opinion upon tlTe stance^ 0> tbit cinstance-., that t-lie damage result*A through defendant not sufficiently turning off the tap. I tliinlcon able by tho exercise of rea-■M-Ftil i a xi d proper precaution have avoided the injury 'complained off It is possibie that defendant did turnOff the tap so as to prevent a flow of tlmt r i'j U not 1 • ordln . ar y pressure, but to J e i“ vo LV‘ f >ly T’jien efficient l l ] ; vc 111111 from liability, as any •ire if 0 ? 0 ? must . know 5 that the pressuie of water varies accordino- to I™ SESTET-. *»■« Ei * .y>w. v , ite . , 1 t'Jlllliv it IS OYfrpßinlr tliproof'* a v i 1 ef e ! kl aut , in n to’fli not P; ly as much Vttenhave do o" It ?? would t , none. It is contended tint defendant cannot be held'liable* for the &?} a S° eomplained of, for tho reason *£v" l neuce, and that he alone had the use and control of it, and no other P-mon but defendant and his wife llad a right of access to it. I'am of opinion m all tho circumstances that the damage complained of did result from the negligence of the defend-

Mi . Finn said that ho was n-ot prepared to go on with the case as damages, and the case was adjourned!