COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5161, 5 August 1927, Page 2

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

SCOTT V. HAURAKI BOARD.

DECISION AGAINST CLAIMANT.

The decis-ion of the Assessment Court in the claim for £lOO compensation from the H.auraki United Drainage Board by Mrs T. Scott, of Turua, in respect of land washed away by the Willow Tree drain and damage caused to pasture and crops by flood-

ing, was given in the Magistrate’s Court at Thames yesterday by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M. Messrs W. E. Hale and W. G. Hayward were the assessor appointed by the Drainage Board and the claimant respectively. Mr E. L. Walton appeared for the Drainage Board and Mr E. J. Clendon for tho claimant, Mrs Scott. In delivering judgment the magistrate said that the Court had decided that under neither head could the claim succeed. In regard to the quarter-acre of land for which £25 was sought, the claim was restricted by law to damage done within one year. From the evidence it was shown that 26.9 perches had been washed away in 10 years, and it was impossible for the* Court to assess the amount or value of the land washed away within the last 12 months. There would possibly be two or three perches, and as the value had been admitted by witnesses for the claimant at £26 an acre it would only be worth a shilling or two.

In regard to the floooding, there was much doubtful evidence. It lay on the claimant to prove that there had been a stop-bank. There was no proof that there was ever a stop-bank, although there was evidence that it had been thrown on to one of the drain banks and left there, and that it acted as a stop-bank. This was denied by the board’s witnesses, and there was no proof that it had been washed away. On the other hand, there ,was proof that other land about the mouth of the drain was subject to flooding. The onus laid on the claimant to prove negligence by the Drainage Board, and this was not done. The Court therefore considered the claim could not succeed. Mr Walton formally asked for costs. The Magistrate said that the Court had come to the conclusion that each side should bear its own costs.