YESTERDAY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 49, 30 January 1885, Page 2

YESTERDAY.

— — (Before His Honor Judge Rawson). J. H. Blackmore v. Feilding Borough Corporation. J. H. Blackmore's evidence continued. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins : The property was transferred to him to his wife a little before the action was commenced. Do no know condition of property just before the bridge gave way. There was no water on the property when he left in the morning. There was water on the next section where the land was a foot and a half lower, about nine years ago there was a heavier flood in Feilding. On 3rd September last he did no see Manchester Square under water. Never lodged a complaint to the Council about the unsafety of the bridge. There were about three thousand yards of silt over the land. The fences have all been destroyed, and about sixty pounds worth of crops. He paid £5 10s for the removal of the debris of the bridge. A lot of the land was washed away. By the Judge: There were several floods before but never saw one so high. The bridge has been in bad condition the last twelve months. The bridge came bodily on the land. The protection works were badly secured. George Lyne deposed the he had been employed by the Council to inspect the Warwick-street bridge, Feilding. Recollected the flood in September last. Saw the bridge in question over the Makino-street. It was in a neglected state, spoke to Mr Hill, the Engineer of Feilding Borough Council about about two months before the flood in reference to the insecure nature of the bridge. Mr Hill said he had spoken to the Council about it. The breastwork of the bridge was out of repair. The sills were not deep enough, one being bare. Considered that the plaintiff's property entirely spoilt. The bridge could easily have been secured at the time of the flood. Had had great experience in bridge work. Cross examined by Mr Esam: He had built bridges for the government. There was about ten feet of the sill bare and generally the bridge was in a tumble-down condition. The breastwork was shattered from one side to the other. The water had gone in under the piles. The bridge giving way must have caused the silting. Henry McNeil deposed that he had had twenty-five years experience in bridge work and had built some of the largest bridges in New Zealand for the Government. It customary in New Zealand on account of the nature of the creeks to put sills on the banks of the creek or river and the protection works must be well secured and kept in repair. There is no bottom to a New Zealand creek. It would be necessary for the essential safety of the bridge that the breastwork be well packed. He believed that the bridge in the situation it was in during the flood could have been easily tethered. Cross examined by Mr Hankins : If the bridge had been tethered it would have swung round on to the adjoining land and left the current of the stream clear. It is a difficult matter to keep a bridge of the kind in question upon a stream in time of flood. By a juryman : The bridge would not have gone if the breastworks had been properly kept in repair notwithstanding the flood. Fairfield Thompson deposed that as a contractor he had built several bridges for the government. Was the contractor for the erection of the Warwickstreet bridge, Feilding. Sublet the contract and the breastwork of the bridge has since been repaired. The bridge, notwithstanding that the protection works were out of repair could have been secured and kept in position at a cost of about three pounds. ??? plaintiff's property and was certain nothing would now grow on it except perhaps docks. Cross examined by Mr Esam : When the flood was at its highest the bridge could have been tethered in half an hour and it would have been kept in position. The loose earth forced the breastwork out showing that the earth had not been properly secured. Gichard, butcher, stated that he was present at the scene of the obstruction caused by the bridge giving way during the flood in question, and corroborated the plantiff's evidence. Saw bridge prior to the flood on several occasions, and it was out of repair. Several Councillors and about 30 persons were looking at the at bridge during the flood and it could easily have been secured to prevent, the damage of plaintiff's property. Just before the bridge gave way the witness was upon the plaintiff's property and there was no water. When the bridge stuck in the creek it diverted about two -thirds of the water on the plantiff's property. Thomas Evans, labourer, testified that the breastwork of the bridge, prior to the flood was out of repair, and the Council had patched it up. He valued the plaintiff's property, before the damage at two hundred pounds, and it was now not worth ??? When the bridge was carried away he was near with Councillor Westwood and told him that the bridge should be secured. Before the bridge gave way he saw Mr Sherwill standing near catching the waifs which were washed down the stream, but did nothing to prevent the bridge going. Witness and plaintiff did their to get the the bridge out after it had washed away and stuck in the creek. Cross examined by Esam : Witness removed a horse out of the section adjoining plaintiff's. There was water over the section. There was not much debris coining down the stream. There was a strong pressure of water. Saw a floodgate come down and stick in the bridge. There was not too much water to secure the bridge. James Rose, blacksmith, corroborated the previous witnesses concerning the damage done to plaintiff's property and described the bridge over which he had frequently passed, as in "a very shaky condition." Saw the bridge go down the stream. It first gave way where it had been repaired with scrub. E. J. Cottrell, storekeeper, gave corroborating evidence and considered the plaintiff's property before the flood as one of the prettiest in Feilding. The bridge was out of repair and the water in the stream was continually washing the earth away just alongside it. The Council has repaired the bridge several times but had only put racines since the flood. This concluded the plaintiff's case which was the adjourned till 10 o'clock next day.