YESTERDAY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 280, 23 October 1884, Page 2

YESTERDAY.

[Before His Honor .Deputy Judge Li . _.„,...., —JRawson.}'-— ■-- -•—- --CIVIL CASE. CONTINUATION OP BEPORT. BJackmoi-e v. Eielding Borough Council. The plaintiff, Mi* Blackmore, was the first witucs examined by 'Mr Staite/his counsel. * ( I Cross examined by Mr J. H. Han* kins: I transferred the property to injr I wife three days before commencing the present action; have known the floods to be higher nine years ago. and a <>reat deal higher than the one three years ago. The Warwick-street bridge was erected' five' or six yean' ago, and before the Borough' camo into existence; it was erected by the Manchester Highway Board; was.never, employed m repairing the bridge, but assisted to repair" the adjoining culverts about four or five years ago, at which time I was m the employment of the Board; was never troubled with with, the bridge before. About halt an acre of ground was damaged, m some places was covetd with refuse and mud 4ft deep, the kitchen garden beiug completely cov6rcd"alj6u€^ffoot doep. By the Court: The creek was 22 feet wide and the bridge 38 feet long from angle to angle, the width beiug between 14 and 15 feet. Mr McNeil's evidence elicited nothing of any consequence. Mr Haukins here cited similar cases to the one being tried, to show the non-liability of the Council, the latter not having erected the bridge but merely taken it over from tho Road« Board. ' James Roso, by Mr "Warburton: I am a blacksmith, residing at Fielding; remember the morning the bridge was washed away; was there from 7 till 10.30 m the morning. Believed the property to be worth to Blackmore £SbO ho (Rose) would not give more than £150 for it now; the bridge might have been kept from getting adrift; no steps wnre taken by the Borough authorities to secure it. Sawjthe Borough engineer there, (Mr Hill) tho Mayor also, and a roadman belonging to the Borough, and several councillors. Saw the bridge carried away. No order was given by the Mayor or any ot the Borough Officers to interfere. It got jammed m Blackmore's property which would have received no damage but for this. By Mr Hankins: Traffic across the railway bridge over the same creek was suspended on account of the flood. The bridges should have been fastened to timber standing on an adjoining section, or guided down the stream to a sort of bay close to where it would have been safe. E. Gichard, butcher, was the next witness examined. He deposed: I am a councillor of the Feilding Borough. The property damaged, owned by plaintiff I considered to be valuable before it wat» flooded; do not know of any property m Feilding on which move time and money had been expended; have been a resident of Ecilding 10 years. Saw the flood on September 3rd ; was on the proj>erty of plaintiff about 7 m the morning; crossed the bridge going there; the banks had then given way, the protective works erected were not sufficent. On one occasion I saw the men repairing the bridge and using manuka scrub and lose mould; believe it would have been quite easy to have prevented tho carrying away of the bridge; believe the market value of the property before tho flood, to be about £150 or £160, and at the present time not worth more than £50 or £60; know the property had ag| ecial value to plaintiff and his wife; know the plaintiff about 10 years; he has been m my employment about 2 or 8 years. By Mr Hankins : W f as made trustee for the plaintiff's wife just previous to this action being taken. , Mr Gichavd's examination was continued after the Court resumed its sittings. Mr Evans and Mr Sherwill were also placed m the witness box. The latter's examination was interrupted by an argument between counsel, and just then Mr Staite ap» plied for an adjournment till the following day m order to have the as-sistance-of counsel then on the way from Wellington. This the Bench refused. Mr Staite then closed his case for the plaintiff, and Mr Hankins addressed the Bench of behalf of the defendant, the Borough on Fielding, asking that the plaintiff be nonsuited on grounds atfuraed by learned counsel. -* The Court granted the application, nonsuiting the plaintiff with costs, without referring the matter to the jury, stating it was not a question for their consideration.