The King v. Archer

a majority judgment the Court of King's Bench reduced the plaintiff's recovery to $689. From this judgment both parties appealed independently to this court. On motion THEIT the defendant's appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff's appeal, in which he now demands that the judgment in his favour be increased to $2,816.42, was heard.

C.C. The finding of the Superior Court that the flooding was due to a narrowing of the river channel by the piers of the bridge constructed by the defendant, affirmed unanimously by the Court of King's Bench, appears to be supported by sufficient evidence to put interference with it by this court out of the question.

The sufficiency of the amount allowed for damages is, therefore, the only matter to be considered.

Section 5684 of the Revised Statutes of Quebec (13 Geo. V, c. 65, s. 611) prescribes that a person who would recover damages from a municipal corporation for injury caused to his property shall within 30 days from the date of the occurrence of such injury give notice in writing to the clerk of the municipality " containing the particulars of his claim." The day after the flooding of which he complains, the plaintiff caused a letter to be written by his attorney to the secretary-treasurer of the defendant corporation informing it of his claim for damages exceeding $2,000 suffered by him " dans son moulin." With the view of the Court of King's Bench that the notice given by the plaintiff was a sufficient compliance with the statute as to the damages claimed for injury to the mill and such things as may reasonably be considered as incidental or appurtenant thereto, we are in accord. The legislature did not intend that there should be a detailed account of the items of the damage. The purpose of the notice was to give the municipal corporation such knowledge of the claim in respect of which it was given as would enable it to make the necessary inquiries to ascertain, within a reasonable time after the claim arose, the basis of it and the material facts and circumstances affecting the corporation's liability. The notice, therefore, was properly treated as sufficient to support a claim for liability for damages caused by the flooding to the mill property itself and to its appurtenances.

S.C.R.