AN INTERESTING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 421, 21 May 1902, Page 3

AN INTERESTING CASE.

PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE LIT! GATION OVER A CREEK.

By Telegraph—Press Association. ‘ Napier, last night. At tho Supreme Court to day Edward Watts claimed from Chas. Clark the sum of 41201 for damages to property caused by interference with tho ordinary course of a Btream at Patangata. The litigants were neighbors, and the plaintiff's cause was based on the fact that a creek which flowed through plaintiff’s land and drained an area of 1000 to 1500 acres had been in the habit of overflowing and making its way through part of defendant’s Jand. A private road was formed across the creek, and this had the effect in 1880 of causing a small overflow from the main creek, which, however, continued to flow in its old course. .The creek was a heavy siltbearing stream, and about 1892 the overflow channol along the road became silted up in the course of nature. In 1897 a dispute arose between the parties through defendant putting a ditch along his boundary fence, but because of plaintiff’s objection tho ditch was not carried far enough to check. In June, 1900, however, the defendant carried the ditch and bank furthor, blocking the course of the creek. The plaintiff at once objected, and finally made outs in the bank to let the water through, and in consequenoe the ditoh and bank were carried away. That was the plaintiff’s intention, and he admits it to be so. In December, 1901, the defendant again made the ditoh and bank, and plaintiff found it necessary to commence proceedings. Evidence was given to show that the main stream is following its natural course, which carries it on defendant’s property. Cuts which at one time existed on defendant’s land, and which carried off the overflow and prevented the creek spreading on his land, had caused the trouble. The ditch defendant had dug was incapable of carrying off a third of the water from the stream, and a considerable part of plaintiff’s land was thus under water and unfit to carry stock, and had been deteriorated to the extent of £4 or £5 an acre. The defence was that the creek which

plaintiff described as the main creek was in reality an overflow channel, and that | the main stream had followed a different course until quite recently, when it silted up, and defendant began the protective Works complained of. Further evidence will bo heard tomorrow.