SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 1 March 1928, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

THURSDAY, MARCH 1. (Before His Honour, Mr Justice Adams). 11 is Honour took his seat a I 18.35 a.m. CLAIM SETTLED. IV. 11. Robinson v. V. T. Bennett, claim for €2ll 13s Sd and statement of accounts between the parties in connection with llie sale <>t a block of land Minute on Arabura river and commonly known as the I tiliua block. Mr Murdoch for plaintiff, Mr Sellers for defendant. Mr Murdoch intimated that the ease bad been settled out of court. Mis Honour accordingly struck it out. J URGM EXT BY CONSENT. J. 11. Wilson v. W. D. S. Dicdrichs, claim for £O3O 18s Od for moneys lent and secured by mortgage on section No 93, town of Hokitika. Mr Murdoch for plaintiff. Mr Sellers for defendant. Air Murdoch intimated that defendant had agreed to judgment for plaintiff by consent. Mr Sellers concurred. His Honour entered up judgment for plaintiff by consent for €036 ]Bs Od with interest at 7 per cent from 31st December to date of judgment. *ost' and disbursements according i.o scale amt counsels fee £5 -3s. CD VIM EUR DAMAGES. Carl J. Nendo v. Cecil Autheman. Mr Murdoch for plaintiff. Mr I’ilkingloii tor defendant. A claim for an injunction and damages €25. Mi Murdoch, opening for plain* id said the parties were neighbours at I laribari. and the damage alleged was caused by washing water and allowing it io escape mi to plaintiff’s land. Carl J. Hondo deposed be was a farmer residing at Kokatalii. Know defendant who resides at I laribari. Witness owned sections of land at Hariliari and produced title. It does not show any water-course running through it. Known the land for -10 years. There is no water-course thereon. Prior to selling his land to defendant, there was no running water across the land, lie cultivated that particular area before selling, having no difficulty whatever in using it lor farm traffic. Sold the laud occupied by defendant to him. Had a water supply by means ol u pipe line that ran along the road line. 9 lie water was brought as a safeguard against protracted spells of line weather. Had satisfactory taps to turn on or olf as required. The defendant has taken two branch lines two chains and one and a half chains in length, connecting with his cowshed and house Irom j the main pipe line, lie has utilised the water for his (owslied, and has allowed the water to run almost continuously, night and day. on to the ground. Emm tile cowshed there is a slight, general fall across ilelendant s land towards plaintitf's land. Defendant uses the water to sluice out tlie cowshed. lie bad abortion among his cows, which is a contagions complaint. Defendant had no permission to put that water on the land of witness. The result of the water was that it made the land it passed over verv boggy. Iliis was caused by the action of ilelendant. Below witness s land was another farmer. Petersen, who sent a letter in regard to this matter. lie considered the value of the wh.de area. ->5 acre.-, lias been reduced by £1 per acre. Ibe area elfeeted was from 2 to It tect in width and 1-1 or 15 chains in length. Return tlie writ was issued defendant promised to disconnect the water. Had made complaints to. defendant some three mid two and a halt years ago, but he did not do as lie promised. Witness did bis utmost. to prevent i nmmencing the present proceedings.Since the issue ol tile writ deiendant discontinued the nuisance, ami following th* line weather the damage i,. mu o apparmtl now. in M i | ilkinglun : Am iictmin sold j is stock by auction on October 22, and lias not Used bis cowshed since. A half inch water pipe is the supply ill (jucstiun. ’the ilelendant s tinning- was seven anil a half chains. There were two taps from the pipe line that Autheman extended to his house ami i owshetl. His Honour in the eottrse oi a <lUitissiott. said what they had to prove was whether the defendant bad wrongfully allowed water to enter on tlu* property of plaintilf. Witness continued that there we*v

no taps on i lie pipe line in the cowshed. Witness purchased some cows from defendant, though he considered they were infected with abortion. Witnes> formed a pond hack from the road line on defendant's section, hut t In- water therefrom- could, not »e used in the milking shed. iwemy gallons of water each milking would be sufficient to wash down. There was no other place for any overtlow of water, it no artificial means were prnv iilcd. lte-esamined : lie wished defendant to restrict the use of water. I here was prohahl.v it! feet of pressure of water. Since Autheinan restricted the supply of water, the land of witness has resumed its normal condition. William Fail-half, deposed he was a blacksmith at llarilmri. Knew the land in question. Four years ago the land l.elow the cowshed was period l.v dry. Some time ago lie assisted Hondo to put in a stone crossing beta use the land was hoggv, caused by water Iront \ utlietnan > cowshed. He did not have much idea, of the amount ot damage done. The stone crossing was about the middle of Hondo's property. Prior to the water coming Hemic .-row turnips on the ground aborted. ('Left Sitting).