THE MAREWHENUA RIVER POLLUTION CASE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 619, 27 February 1874, Page 3

THE MAREWHENUA RIVER POLLUTION CASE.

■i■ - ■ •#y Borton, M.‘Master, and Gardiner, Plain- ,,. tiffs, v. ■Hoavu. dlowe, and Boiler,' Defendant*. —o— The following remarks accompanying the declaration of plaintiffs in the above suit have been placed in our hands for publication ; “As it is too often taken for granted that the question in dispute 'oetween Messrs Borton andM'Masiersand Howe ami party, of Maerewhenna, is entirely of local interest, and it is not recognised as it should be that the princijde at stake is one that, if decided adversely to the, gold-miners,, must,greatly check, .if not entirely put an end to the working of alluvial ground, th e St. Bathan’s Miners’ Association have thought R well to circulate, for the private information of miners and associations, the declaration calling upon Howe and party to defend their act, in discharging,tailings into the Maerewhenna River, an act which it is alleged, is deserving of a penalty; of 5,0001. It is hoped that the circulation of this declaration will he sufficient to induce all mining centres to perceive that the cause of their onm people is at Stake in a battle which, if lost, practically means the abandonment of the Otago Oold-fiehis by the mining population.

“ MCLABATIOS. “ The plaintiffs, by Spencer Brent, thfiir solicitor, sue the defendants, and say “ 1. That the plaintiffs have always been and still are lawfully possessed of certain laud on the Maerewhenua lliver [Here follows description.] And the plaintiffs were entitled to have the use of the Maerewhenua lliver aforesaid, flowing by tbe said lands of the plaintiffs, for their cattle to drink and for sheep-washing, and for domestic and other useful mid ben.eneial purposes, without the same being polluted and disturbed as hereinafter mentioned. “2. That the defendants, on the first day of July, 1873, and on divers o .her days aud times since the said Ist day of July 1873,, wrongfully polluted ami disturbed the water of the said river, by throwing and causing to flow into the same, above and near to the laud of the plaintiffs, large quantities of earth, soil, sand, stone,'sludge, tailings, aud other foul and impure substaheeS, so that the said river became foul, polluted, and unlit fur the plaintiffs’ cattle to drink, or for sheep-washing, or fordomestio purposes, whereby the plaintiffs .lost the use of the water of the said river, aud their said land was injured and lessened in value, andj the plaintiffs were unable to wash their sheep at the proper season, and and were compelled to shear their sheen in the grease, to the great lups and damage of the plaintiffs. “ Wherefore the plaintiffs claim to recover from the dcfeivda.iis -the sum of ten thousand pound* Damages j and the plain tiffs also claim a Writ ef Injunction to restrain the. defendants from the repetition of the injuries heretofore complained of, aud the committal of other injuries of a like kind, relating to the same p.operties and rights respectively. “Notice of Special Damage. Take Notice, that the plaintiffs will claim to recover special damage for the following injuries .sustained by them, namely; Five thousand pounds for the difference in the selling price of the wool of the plaintiffs’ sheep, m consequence of same having to he shorn in the grease, because, owing to the fouling of the MaeieW’hfnua llii'er, the plaintiffs could not uso the water of the said river for washing their sheep, and they have no other water available, for that purpose.” ,