Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 01 February 1913
Conisboro’ Subsidence
Butcher Sued for Damages
Result of Excavations
An Interesting Case
At the Doncaster County Court, on Wednesday, before His Honour Judge Allen, an interesting case was heard, in which Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Keys, of 21, Doncaster Road, Conisboro’, sued August Walter, a pork butcher, for damages caused by subsidence of land at Conisboro’, the claim being for £43 6s. Mr. T. E. Ellison, barrister, Sheffield, represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Horace Wilson, barrister, Sheffield, represented the defendant.
Mr. Ellison said the plaintiff was the owner of two copyhold houses, 20 and 22, Doncaster Road, Conisboro’, and the defendant owned certain land adjoining on the north-west side. The houses were erected in 1868, and remained in a perfectly sound condition until the defendant began excavating operations on his land. The houses had a yard behind which sloped down to the defendant’s property, and there was a stone wall, the boundary between the two properties. There was an embankment along the defendant’s land, and that was necessary for the support of the plaintiff’s land.
In 1909 the defendant indulged in building operations a short distance from the boundary wall, and contrary to the usual practice he did not build a retaining wall, but went on making his excavations. The result was that on December 10th a land slip occurred, and considerable damage was done to plaintiff’s property. The wall supporting the plaintiff’s property was damaged, a large fissure appeared in the yard, and cracks in the walls of the house. Two or three weeks later the boundary wall came completely down.
Plaintiff’s husband saw the defendant, who made a suggestion about repairing the walls, but refused to repair any other damage. Plaintiff instructed her solicitor, and then the defendant commenced to build a retaining wall, after the signs of subsidence were checked. The action was not started until this took place, as the plaintiff was anxious to ascertain the actual damage. The claim was for £43 6s. The damage was estimated at £40, and the remaining £3 6s. was claimed for loss of rent, as the plaintiff was unable to let the house. Plaintiff gave evidence in support, describing how the cistern in her house stopped working owing to the subsidence and the washhouse and slop trough were torn from the houses. Charles Keys, the plaintiff’s husband, also gave evidence. The defendant commenced the excavations about May, 1909. The land slipped so much in one place, eight or ten feet. There was a crack five to six feet deep and two feet wide.
Mr. Geo. White, an eminent estate agent, Mexboro’, said he was called in to inspect and report in April, 1910. He found the cellar walls had given way, the steps from the court yard up into the house, the pavement in the yard, the boundary wall had given way, and there were fissures parallel to the house. The boundary wall at the lower side had fallen down, and he produced plans and photographs. He had prepared an estimate of the cost of repair. It was the moderate amount of £40. He had no doubt as to the cause of the damage.
Arthur Edward Falding, surveyor and architect, who had also inspected the property, gave evidence.
Mr. Percy White, a mining engineer, said he inspected the property in April, 1910, and he agreed with the evidence as to the cause of the damage. The damage was caused by the excavating of the embankment to the rear of Mrs. Keys’ property. The estimate was a reasonable one to put the premises into a proper state of repair again. £40 was a reasonable claim.
Mr. Wilson, in defence, said that in the first place his case was that the claim was grossly exaggerated. The property was old, having been built in 1868, and no substantial repairs had been carried out since then, except pointing and painting. There had been a gradual subsidence. He thought the evidence he would put before his Honour would be such that he would have no hesitation in saying that whatever the defendant did was not the cause of the damage. The retaining wall was not damaged in the slightest degree. The damage was done by the rainfall from the roof and bad drainage.
Mr. August Walter, the defendant, said he bought the premises in 1909, and he employed Mr. Saville, a contractor, to lay a drain. The work was finished about the end of December. The excavations were six feet deep and four or five yards wide, and planks and staves were put in to keep them up. The staves were eighteen inches or two feet apart. The drain was properly filled in. Defendant saw a good deal of the work done. The soil was clayey towards the end and stones and clay mixed. Before he began the work he noticed Mrs. Keys’ wall was cracked and hanging over. It had come out at one end, where the Rural District Council had been making some alterations.
Mr. Ellison, cross-examining, asked if he had noticed the wall very carefully. Defendant said yes. He admitted he thought it would probably come down, and that some excavations would make it come down. He did not consider the fissure was caused by his excavations, and he could not suggest anything else that would cause the fissure.
His Honour asked if there was any other cause of the damage. Defendant said yes, there was the colliery company. He knew the plaintiff had appealed to the colliery company.
Mr. Ellison asked if he had any witnesses to prove that the fissures were due to the colliery company. Defendant said he had made no enquiries.
Mr. H. R. Saville, contractor and builder, of Conisboro’, said he laid a drain at the back of the house. There was nothing in connection with the work on the site of Mr. Walter’s land when he left it to cause any subsidence of the adjoining property. The work was passed by the Rural District Council surveyor.
His Honour said they would all agree that the work was done, and well done, so the witness need not trouble himself on that point.
Proceeding, the witness said the land behind Mrs. Keys’ houses was treacherous, and was on the slope. He remembered the Rural District Council putting a manhole in. In the witness’s opinion that was when the first damage was caused. The Rural Council’s sewer had to be lowered so that the houses could drain theirs into it. They put in a manhole ten feet deep, and one night it all fell in at the side. That lowered the foundation of the wall and brought down tons of clay.
Herbert Stacey, a bricklayer, said he had been employed by Mr. Saville for 20 years. He helped to build the defendant’s house in October, 1909, and he was there when the drain was put in. The boundary wall was hanging over.
George Crowcroft, of the Market Tavern, Doncaster, said that he lived in one of Mrs. Keys’ houses for six months, about six years ago. The steps at the back door had all left the building, and the court yard was very uneven, water settling all over it. The steps were dangerous. The water went through the bricks.
Mr. John Simmons, surveyor and architect, of Doncaster, said he had made a careful inspection of Mrs. Keys’ houses and the defendant’s property too. The retaining wall was a good one, and there were no signs of damage in it. He saw the property the day previous, but saw no signs of a fissure. He never saw any signs of a fissure when he first went. Witness had examined the backs of the houses, and he thought that defective drainage was the cause of the wet soil. He placed the damage at £4 1s. 6d.
Mr. Sidney Allen, an architect and surveyor, said he went independently and examined the place. The boundary wall of Mrs. Keys’ property was knocked down. He estimated the damage at £3 9s.
Mr. Geo. Downing, a builder, of Conisboro’, said there was no damage except ordinary wear and tear. Witness had entered a claim with the colliery company for the damage, and they had bought the houses.
Mr. Ellison submitted that there was no defence whatever. It was the defendant’s excavations which caused the damage. The plaintiff had made out a case and was entitled to a verdict for something like the amount claimed.
His Honour held that the defendant withdrew the support in his excavations, and the question he had to decide was how much of the damage was attributable to that. He thought that £22 10s. was a fair amount, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.