LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 839, 10 June 1910, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

FLOOD RISKS. A DAM IN THE WAIWETU STREAM. FARMER'S COMPLAINT. Changes in the bod of the Waiwehi Stream, alleged to have been artificially caused, were the basis of an action heard yesterday in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). I he plaintiff was JCarl Rasmussen, farmer, of Waiwetu, who claimed .£250 damapes from Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, flock manufacturers. In his statement of claim, plaintiff set forth that a dam had been erected in the Waiwetu Stream in IS9S. Subse- i fluently to his taking over the flock-mill worked by the stream waters, the height of the dam had been raised, causing the water of the stream to- flood liis property, adjoining, and also causing excessive erosion of the banks. The claim included n_ sum as compensation for the loss of Native shrubs or trees which had been washed away. In addition to damages, plaintiff also sought an injunction by the Court restraining defendants from causing further flooding or injury to his land. Tho defence set out in the pleadings was that the dam did not wrongfully obstruct the natural flow of the water in tho stream, that it did not cause the wator to erode Rasmussen's land, or cause appreciable damage. On the contrary, tho holdiug back of the water, it was contended, prevented the scouring out of the banks during flood time. Defendants consequently claimed that they were entitled to maintain the dam as at present, and denied that Rasmnssen had lost Native plants or trees. It was asserted, also, for the defence, that Rasi musson had acquiesced/in the erection of the dam, and had encouraged the expenditure of money upon it. Further than this, tho defendants urged that the' effect of the dam was' to assist irrigation, and that the drainage of Rasmusseu's land ! was not with. It was, added that if an injunction wero issued, irreparable .injury would be done to the defendants' business, and that the defendants had lodged J25 with the Court to cover any damage that Rasmussen might have sustained. Mr. Ward appeared for plaintiff, and I Mr. C. B. Morison for defendants. | The witnesses who gave evidence in i support'of the plaintiff's case were Karl Rasmussen (plaintiff), Gilbert LaingMeason (civil engineer), John Duthie (merchant), Charles Thorns (farmer), David Kear Blair (civil engineer), John Walter Cudby (inspector of works for tho Hutt County Council), Maurice W. Welch (member of the Hutt' County Council), Arthur Pitt (farmer, of Belmont), George Dorne (farmer, of Belmont), Arnold Forsyth (poultry farmer), William Selwyn Buck (surveyor), and John James Burns (labourer). This concluded the case for plaintiff, and further hearing was adjourned until Monday at 10.30 a.m. DUCO CASES SETTLED. Settlement out of Court has been arrived at in two special jury cases set down for hearing at tho present civil I sessions of the Supreme Court. The first case was that in which Margaret Anniss made a claim for <£1500 against the Wellington. Harbour Ferries, Ltd., on account of loss of life on the ferry steamer Duco, her husband, Sidney" Anniss, having been a fireman on the vessel. Tho case was to have been heard'on Monday next. The Ferry Company was tho defendant in tho second case also, which was to have come before the Court on Thursday next. Tho plaintiff in this action was Emma Sellstroin, who also claimed jCISGQ damages, her husband, Frederick Sellstrom, seaman, having lost his life on the Duco.