DISTRICT COURT CROMWELL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 781, 6 April 1877, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT CROMWELL.

—o- • Thursday, April 5. (Before His Honor George William Harvey, Judge.) Downey and another v. M'Lean. Mr Finn for plaintiff, Mr Wilson for defendant. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as registered owners of a water race running through part of the Ardgour Station, against, the defendant, who is manager for the owners of the station, and the plaintiffs alleged that on and since the 4th of November last the defendant deprived them of the use of the said race and of two sluice heads of water connected with same, and that defendant had further used and broken down the said race for conveying water to sheep paddocks, thereby preventing plaintiffs from working their claim, and they sought to recovcrjL2oo damages. The defendant pleaded general denial, and several special defences, the most important of which was that the creek out of which the race headed ran. through a piece of land included in an -agricultural lease held by the station owners, and that they were entitled to the use of the water running in the said creek, or to two sluice heads thereof, and that the plaintiffs, although’’" requested by notice in writing, neg’ectidand r fuse 1 to allow two sluice heads to pass down the caeek, whereupi n defendant, as a servant, and by'command of the owners, removed certain distractions iu the creek for tie purpose of allowing the water to flow down, and he denied that he committed any wrong to the plaintiffs thereby. Plaintiffs proved the diversion of water from the race into the Creek by defendant, also that the race at a late date bad been cut through at a point three-quarters of a mile from its head, and that at that point the water escaped into the station sheep paddocks, but could produce no evidence who had made the cut in the race. Plaintiffs produced their water licenses, and admitted that they had no special privileges, a'so, that they had had notices served on them both by the defendant and the ' Warden of the district to let two sluice heads clown the creek. Mr Foster, surveyor, produced plan of locality, shewing that the creek ran through the land comprised in the agricultural lease. This being the close of the plaintiffs’ case His Honor held that the plaintiffs having a grant subject to the provisions in the Act and the regulations requiring two sluice heads of water to run down the creek when required for general nse, and the defendant having demanded same was justified in going up the creek and removing any obstruction in same, and directed the jury to find a verdict for defendant. Verdict accordingly for defendant with costs, it being understood that the plaintiffs had their righ*- of appeal to the Supreme Court if so advised. Hallenstein and Co. v. Eureka Gold Mining Company—Goods sold and delivered. No defence having been filed, judgment went for plaintiff with costs.