DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2631, 12 September 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHRISTOHUROH. Monday, Sbptbmbbb 11. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] In the case of Thompson ▼ Oxfcd Rj&d Board the following evidence was taken after we went to press : G-eorge Curie deposed that he was a farmer residing at Oarleton, and was previously manager for Messrs Wilkin and Co., on their Carleton station. He had known Thomson'* land for fifteen years. About ton or twelve ohains of fencing had been washed away on that property. It was worth about lOi a chain to erect it. Some of the land was sooured away. About twenty-five acres had been flooded, and oonld not be cultivated. Previous to drains being out, the Oust could take all the water that came down, because it came slowly, owing to the peaty nature of the country, and the nmtnber of bog holes to be filled up ; but now it cama with a rush, and consequently often flooded the land in question. Cross-examined by Mr Harper The Oxford main drain, or Ellis' drain, was made before he went to Carleton. Land in that district could have been cultivated before the drains were cut, but it would not be safe to cultivate now for fear of floods. Be-examined —Formerly the bogs drained into the Oust, but now the water was diverted to plaintiff's land. W. A. Nalder deposed that he is a licensed surveyor. The plan produoed of Thomson's property is an aoourate one, and was prepared by him. Had seen debris of flood on Thomeon'a land, whieh was shown by dotted Hues on the plan in question. The flood was oonsed by insufficient outlet, and the silting up make* the river bed higher than the surrounding land. If the drain had been oarried straight through the silting up might have been prevented. The Cuat draitss a large area. Had the drains not bean made the water would have been longer in finding its way to the river, and thu3 floods would have been prevented. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—The hollow is not ordinarily covered by water but only at flood. The river had no terraors or bai.k;, indeed it is only a oreek. Reginald Blunden deposed that he is a farmer near Carleton, and knew the land damaged by flood. He computed the loeb sustained by Mr Thomson at £2 10s per sore

per annum. For two years he had been unable to orop it. Taken as grazing land the result ii, that if not flooded, it would oarry five sheep to the aore. Now it will soaroely oarry one sheep to the acre. Cross-examined by Mr Harper Bode through Thomson's land this season, at whioh time at least sixteen aores were under water. The flood was caused by the drains, and it would, in his opinion, have been safe to orop it if the drains were not made. He, too, Buffered from the drains —that is, from overflow aud sittings brought on the land thereby. John O'Stake, a farmer in the vioinity, deposed to the losses of crop he had sustained through these drains. He had opeued ten chains of drainage to the Oust by the direction of the Oxford Boad Board, but owing to the tilting up of that stream the water overiowed the lands belonging to Keats and Thomson, and also his land. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—" What he did to the drain was by the sanction of the Board, and at his request, for whioh ho was paid; but owing to the silting it was no good, the outlet being stopped. George Keats deposed that he was a farmer at Oarleton, and knew the locality for twentythree years. The result of the drains being made was that the river was silted up, and his land was covered with shingle, and a lot of his fences had been destroyed by flood. Before these drains were made the Oust took away the storm water steadily, and floods were rare.

At this stage, Mr Harper oontended that tho plaictiff must be non-auited. The right parties had not been sned, as the drains complained of were made before the Public Works Act oame into force. He would call attention to part 7 of that Aot [clause read] contending that it was there laid down that the County Counoil should bo sued, unless the powers of drainage be delegated to the Boad Board, as is not the case in this instance ; that is, there is no evidence given to show that such is the case. As to the aotion taken by the Boad Board in touching or oleaning out drains, they were simply trespassers, and could be proceeded against as suoh individually. Mr Stringer oontended that the proper persons had been prooeeded against, as the Boad Board not only made the drains, but paid O'Stake to maintain them. The oa»e quoted by his learned friend had no bearing on the present action. He would refer his Honor to the Canterbury Boads Ordinance, 1872, in which tho power of control of sewerage and drainage wore distinctly laid down; and if as a body corporate they had done what they had no right to do, for those aots as a body corporate they were liable. Besides the onus of proof lay on the other side, and his learned friend's argument was in his (Mr 8.) favor,

John O'Stake recalled. He made the first drain in 1877 for the Oxford Boad Board.

His Honor could not grant the request. John Djvis, authorised surveyor, deposed that he knew the district referred to, The plan, &c, of the distriot was prepared by him from personal observation and from accurate levels taken. The natural flow of the water is to the Oust. The area of the watershed is about three chains, where it closes in. This drains an area of 15£ square miles, in addition to this at the western end of the area are two drains by which 1J square miles of the distriot is drained into the Eyre. Witness was last in the district on the 18 th of August. [Witness then prooeeded to point out tho various features of the country.] He also visited Thomson's land, and saw effects of floods. The fences across the drain below Thomson's house would obstruct and turn the water baok.

Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Damage to the fencing had been done by the drain water. The ohannel of the Oust has been improved about ten ohains, but it is not of sufficient oapacity to carry the water brought down by the drains. At this stage the Court adjourned till 10 a.m. this (Tuesday) morning.

Tuesday, Sbptbmbbb 12. I Before His Honor Judge Ward.] THOMSOH V OXFOBD BOAD BOABD. {Continued. )

John Djbson deposed that he was olerk to the Oxford Boad Board, and that is was impossible to confine tho water in the drains at flood time, unless immense channels were out. [The evidenoe of this witness was practioally a history of the drains in the district.] Cross-examined by Mr Sttinger—The difference of time in flood water coming down on the land before and after the drains being out would be about one hour.

Messrs Dilnot, Sladden, Wilson, Fisher, and John Ingram, old residents of the distriot, also gave evidenoe.

Joseph Briggs, a resident of Shirley, but who resided in the Oxford diatrio about nine years since, gave evidence as to the nature of the land affected by floods. Frederick King, a resident of East Oxford, who was previously employed on the Oarleton property, gave similar evidence. John Davis was recalled as to the area drained by the Oust. Reginald Blunden waa also recalled as to the nature and ex'enfc of the damage sustained by plaintiff. Learned counsel having addressed the Bench, and His Honor having reviewed the evidence, Mr Stringer decided to accept a nonsuit. The Court then adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow morning.