APPEALS DISMISSED.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 19, 17 July 1912, Page 4

APPEALS DISMISSED.

DRAINAGE AT OTAUA. Cases Before the Court. In the Magistrate's Court at Waiuku a good deal of interest was taken in the seven objections lodged against the classification of land by the Otaua Drainage Board. After argument one objection was allowed, leaving to be dealt with the cases of Messrs W. C. Motion, R. Hull, C. I. Priest, R. Morrison, P. Denize and C. K. Holmes. W. C. Mono*. W. C. Motion claimed exemption on the grounds: (1) That he was in the same position as his neighbours who were partially exempt, (2) that his. property drains by his own drain which discharges into the Otaua Creek, which is a navigable creek for over a mile from the Waikato river. From where the water from Mr Motion's drain emptied it to the creek j no work had ever been done or would require to be done. Mr Motion stated that the Government first dug the drains in question and the Board widened ana deepened them at a later date. Hie property was drained by his own system and no general improvement could affect him. Barges could now take 15 ton loads right past his place. Messrs Hood and Harris, who had flood gates like his, were exempt. A. B. Mellsop, classifier to the Waikato River Board, said that no money could be spent by the DrainS;e Board that would benefit Mr otion. Did not see why Hood and Harris should be exempt and not Motion. F. Hull, a member of the Board, said the bene6t Mr Motion would receive would be the taking away of the flood water and keeping the creek dear. To counsel witness said:— " The reason for exemptions were Mr Harris had a private outlet connecting short drains and he had stop banks. Mr Hood was exempt because he was only a short distance and the majority of water went straight into the Waikato river. Mr Denize should not be exempt without Mr Motion was. The clearing of the creek would be just as beneficial to Mr Harris aa to Mr Motion." Messrs Hammond and Robertson, other members of the Board, agreed with this evidence. W. I. King, an independent witness, said:— My view, after inspection, seeing that the land fronts the creek and drains into it, also that a public drain is near it, is that Mr Motion would derive a benefit. In reviewing the evidence His Worship said without doubt the benefit Mr Motion would receive would be small, on account of the short distance from his outlet to the river; yet a benefit was derived, and as Mr Motion was classed in the lowest scale His Worship could not see that he should be exempted, and therefore dismissed the appeal. Others Dismissed. R. Hull (after lengthy legal argument) deposed that the public drain was of no benefit to him and it caused water to accumulate and flow over his property. No Board scheme could benefit him. After a hearing of over an hour His Worship said it would be a waste of time calling further witnesses, as it was clear Mr Hull must derive a benefit frorp the drains under the control of the Board; therefore the appeal must be dismissed. C. I. Priest objected to being rated in the first-class when he contended that at the utmost he should be second-class; his neighbours were deriving more benefit and were classified at a less rate. To the Bench: when I took up the land it was 16 foot deep in peat; it is now good grazing land. If the Board would dig a drain only one chain long I could get 2ft. Gin. more fall. His i Worship said the Court had not I to deal with the question as to Ist., > 2nd. or 3rd. class, but as to whether the objectors were entitled to exemption through deriving no benefit from the drains under the Board's control. He was of the opinion that they all did derive some benefit, therefore the appeals must be dismissed. Upon this being announced the other cases were not proceeded with. Solicitors 1 fees of £2 2s. each were allowed in the contested cases, and £1 Is each in the othero.