Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Farmer Claims £2251 From River Board

Alleging that the Manawatu-Oroua River Board had been negligent in replaeing a stopbank near his property at Shannon so that the property was flooded and damaged, Alfred Ernesj; Claude JefErey, farmer, of Shannon, proceeded against the River Board for damages amounting to £2251 2s 5d in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday. Mr. Justice Cornish presided. A special jury was empanelled, Mr. F. Cousins being elected foreman. Mr. G. J. McGregor appeared for claimant and Mr. A. W.. Yortt represented the defendant board. The claim embodied genefal damages of £1199 17s 5d, £51 5s as the eost of purehasing f eed for th6 winter, £500 for future loss of production and. £500 special damages. Plaintifl: claimed that prior to May, 1948j his property had been proteeted from floods by a stopbank but' that early in May, 1948, the board eommenced to demolish or reinove part of the bank and to erect a new one. In doing so a gap was left in the work. In erecting the new bank the board had failed to adopt the usual and proper praetice of consolidating the new bank, and used soil or earth from the" old bank, thus dismantling the protection work for the adjacent land. Claimant also stated that the board or its agents dismantled the bank at the wrong time of the year, it being known that floods were likely to occur in the river. The flooding of the property was caused by the execution of the work by the board or its agents in a negligent, unskilfui and careless manner and not in accordance with the recognised practice in the Manawatu distriet. The defence is a denial of any negligence or carelessness in the work. A new stopbank was in the course of erection on May 22, the old bank being worked on first and the soil from it being used to construct the new bank, Aaid Mr. McGregor in outlining his case. There was a gap of one and a half cliains between the old bank and the new one. The soil was pushed across from one bank to the other. When the flood warning eame at 7 p.m. from the Shannon post oflS.ce on May 22, 1948, efforts were made to contaet thq contractor but he could not be located until 11 p.m. "When the contractor arrived he tried to put in a temporary

bloeki After wprking for an Jiour the tractor studk in the mud and nothing further could be Jone. By"3 a.m. Jeffrey, his son and another man, got sandbags and tried tb block the gap. At 7 a.m. the river got too high and came through the gap. Plaintiff had to move his stock and at 9 a.m. the greatei part of -the farm was flooded, the water being in the garden surrounding the house whieh had to be evacuated by 9.30 a.m., by which time there were several f eet of water over the whole of the farm. During the, f ollowing night a portion of the new bank gave way, probably through lack of . consolidat'ion, and a much ^wifter current was xeleased. The implement shed and'certain other buildings were demolished, fences disappeared, and the whole of the property was eovered with silt and sand. The water was up to the windowsills in the house, Even at .the height .of the flood, continued Mr. McGregor, the flood never topped the stopbanks. The whole of the flooding oeeurred through the gap between the banks. The board had full powers over the bhiiks, but in doing work on them it had the responsibility that the work must'be done in a proper manner. It was contended that the methods employed and the supervision were done improperly; the work should not lxave been done in May; the property was left unguarded; the old bank was removed before the new one was up and the gap left unprotected; the new bank was not properly consolidated. Warnings had been given to the board both by tlie owner and the sharemilker on the farm, but these had uot been keeded. It was also contended that the contractor was not experieuced in this kind of work, The hearing of, evidenee was then proceeded with and the case is expected to \ast for several days.; The Jury wjll make an inspection of the property today.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHRONL19490301.2.7

Bibliographic details

Chronicle (Levin), 1 March 1949, Page 3

Word Count
729

Farmer Claims £2251 From River Board Chronicle (Levin), 1 March 1949, Page 3

Farmer Claims £2251 From River Board Chronicle (Levin), 1 March 1949, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert