HEATHCOTE RIVER.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16162, 16 March 1918, Page 12

HEATHCOTE RIVER.

OBNOXIOUS EFFLUENTS. CLUE COMPANY PROCEEDED AGAINST. The nature of the effluent into lit Heathcote river at Woolston lias toi son.i) time beer, a source of considerable trouble to the Christchurch Drain age Board, and its a result an interosting case was brought by the Boa re." at tiie .Magistrate's Court yesterd.ubefore ill* T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., wlm thy New Zealand Glue. Company 'Mi Wright) was charged with having mack a drainage into the river without the consrnt of the Board, and also will; having caused foul liquid, to wit. th< washing from its manufactories, to flov. in the river without the consent ol tiie Board. Mr Alpcrs appeared foi tlie Drainage Board. Mr Alpcrs saiel tliat the (Hue Company curried on a very necessary industry, and the Board in 110 way" wish ed to interfere with its work, or u act unreasonably. Tile company had however, never had the consent of tin Board to allow the effluent, as it was to drain into the river.; 011 the eon trary, it had been informed that tin effluent- must, conform with the stan dard of purity before it could be stl lowed to flow into the Heathcote. Tin Woolston residents had approached tin Board with a request that something should bo done with regard to tin effluents from various works in tin district, and after a conference, ;,i which all the Woolston industries wen represented v.-ith the exception of the New Zealand Glue Company, it wa: decided that all the factories ropr* sen ted should do their best to aba*< the nuisance, pending the result oi certain experiments which were to oc cupy some .six months. The Ghh Company, however, had adopted a dif ferent attitude. It had its catch-pits but they were both too small and toe narrow, and were practically of no us' at all. Tho company had some time ago been given notice to cut off it: connexion. Evidence for the Board was given hi E. Cuthbert, secretary and engineer t< the Drainage Board, Dr. H. Clio.? son, District Health Officer, A. A Bickerton, Government AnalystThomas Tomlinson, Inspector to the Board, John Bichardson, a Woolstoi resident and for many years a mem bcr of the Drainage Board, and Mc Gregor "Wright, at present Mayor ci Woolston. For the defence Mr Wright sail that the case was an important one as far as all the Woolston industrieswere concerned. Tho defendant coin piuiy's industry was one which .shouk bo. assisted as far as possible. It the onlv gelatine factory in Austral asiait exported to Australia, Canada and elsewhere, and before the war I lit articles -which it produced came fron Germany. It had been classed as -f.r essential industry. There had, it liac been alleged, been insulting language used by a member of the company tc the Drainage Board's officer, but there was a remedy for such offences. There was no loason why there should, ii consequence, be an attempt to cripple the industry. Mr Wright went on tc say that there was no putrcfactio?; about tho matter, complained of; iJ there were, it would bo no good foi the company's products. From c legal point of view, Mr Wright con tinned, the company bad actocl strictlj within its rights. All the drains anc water-ce>urses in' the district were vested in the Christchurch Drainage Board, and Mr Wright contended thul the Board had consented to the drain, and, by it, to the drainage of tin: effluent, over 40 years ago, long before the Glue Company came into possession of the works. The consent of the Board, moreover, must be presumed In the fact that there had been no objection raised previously to the company or its predecessors. A question of title arose, and even if the 00mpany w-ere polluting the river, it had the right to do so by prescription. It licit! enjoyed tJic right to drain into the river before the Drainage Act was passed, it had held that right for over 40 years and it was entitled to have that right included in the certificate of title. There was, Mr Wright concluded, a bona fielo question of titlo concerned, and in that case the irwitter iras not "within the' jurisdiction of that Court. „ The company had done all m its power to conform with the washes of the Drainage Board, and ■ la d been unfairly singled out for nrojeeution. Evidence was given by C. C M Oliivier, chairman of director of the VYoolston Tanneries, Ltd., Christopher y- Davis, managing director of the defendant company, and his brother! Maurice. Davis, and other experts tnci old residents. e K Ua !!>' tJ f- case was adjourned to al!o\> his Worship to visit the locality.