DISTRICT COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 214, 31 August 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

[Before bis Hon.r Judos Bkoad.] Joseph MargelU Pierson v. Daniel Slater, Wuliam Northam. William Alborough, William Wastvey,A. S. Collins, and Hobert Donald. _™ B waa aQ *ction to recover the turn of £75 from the defendants who constitute the Suburban. Worth Road. Board for damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff's property by tbe fllliug up of a certain ditch and culvert by the Road Board. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Acion Adams lor the defendants. The following are tha particulars of the claim: — (t) That the plaintiff for upwards of 20 years prior to tlie commission by the defendants ot the trespasses herein alleged bad been, and at the time of the commission of such trespass was, in undisturbed, and interrupted, and peaceabie possession ot certain lands belonging to him, being part of section 29 in the district ot Suburoan North, and was eutitled to have the rain Water and flood water that did and might irom time to time naturally fall and flow upon and through the said lands, and the natural drainage of such Jauds discharged from his said landa into and through a cartaiu road adjoining the said lands. (2) That the defenJants by themselves or their servants on divers days and time* during the month of February, 1876, wrongfully filled up the said dit_h and culvert an! prevented the .aid rain water, and flood water, _nd natural draiuage from being discharged ftom ihe plaintiff 'a said lands into and through the said ditch and culvert, whereby the said rain water, flood water, and natural drainage overfloweJ aud still overflows the said lands and lor a long time remained and still remains ihereou, and spoilt the crop and herbage thertof, and whereby certain drains placed in the said lands by the plaintiff have been rendered unless, aud the plaintiff was and is deprived of the use of the said lands, aad the .a.-d lands are diminished in value, The grounds oi defence were as follows s— (i) That the tr.Bp_s.es complained of (it any; were lawiully commuted by the direction of the defendants acting as the Road Board for the district of Suburban North, and not in their private capicity, and were executed by the officers and wort-men of the Board. (2) Tuat the defendants are sn unincorporated Board, created for the purpose of carrying on works of a puolic ua&ure, and as such should be sued in the asme ot the Chairman thereof, (3) That they did not fill up the culvert mentioned in the particulars. (4) That by virtue of an Act of the Proviucial Couucil of tho Province of Nelson entitled the '• Nelson Highways Act, 1872," the said Board had power to fill up the ditch mentioned in the paiticulur., it being necessary to do to in order t j properly make aud maintain the road mentioned iv the particulars, and the wor«t wus done iv exercise of their authority under the said Act, and in a reasonaole, proper, acd skill ul manner. (5) 'lhat beiug public officers charged with the makiug and repairing of public highways, the de.'endants by tne common law had power to flil up the stid ditch in the manner atoreeaid, as othtrwise the »ai_ road was actually dangerous to lile; aud thegde fudants were iiab.e lor leaving it in tha-, coudition. (6) That the said road being originally taken through the land now owned by the p'aintift under an Act of the Provincial Council or the Province of Nelson, intituled the "Alterati n of Roads Ordinauce, 1854," the plaintiff canu.t oiaioj damages for an injury necessarily caused by the proper construction of the said road. (7) That within the last twenty years the plaiutiff (without the leave of the said Board, deejened the said drain, and constructed und<rground drains trom his laud leading imV> the same, and deknianta have now replaced the sail drain in it. former coudition. Arguments having been heard at considerable Ungth, judguun. was reserved until this day week.