RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 181, 22 July 1908, Page 3

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

ELIiIAM! BOKOUUU CASE. BEt'OKE THE FULL t'Ol'BT. By Telegraph.—xkms Association. Wellington, Tuesday. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the case of the Hawera! County Llcctrical Company v. the Borough" of Lltliaui. Brielly stated, the facts are these; The company, under the Act of 11)0:2, constructed electrical works ou the Waingongoro stream, including a tunnel under the Xormauby road. The Eltham Borough Council, in 1904, under tile iVUmicipal Corporations xVet, erected a reservoir and waterworks higher up the stream, and i the company claims that these work*' so diminish the water as to leave inSutlicienl lor its worK, and demands compensation. A Compensation Court was constituted, but was postponed from time to time, and diu'ereat Judges had the case in hand till ultimately it . was heard in February, 1007. The Court . could not come to a decision, and an-.j , other was appointed; but in the meantime the parties agreed to slate a case for the Full Court and to be bound by its determination of tile questions' of law. The questions were: — (1) M'as the company precluded from j claiming compensation by the fact that its special Act stipulates that its rights were to be without prejudice to uie Municipal Corporations Act? (2) Had the company a legal right to construct the tunnel mentioned!! (3) If not, could the bprougli set up this in mitigation of damages? (4) Had the claims lapsed ou teclinit cal points? l Mr. Findlay opened the case, lie ' slated that the borough' abandoned the : contention that ihe claim had lapsed. r. Wellington, Last Night. JJr. Findlay, K.C., ou behalf of rei, spondents in the llawcva Electric Light- '. ing Co. v. Kltliam Borough Council case. !'- contended that the company had no r- right to construct a tunnel; that its ,'. claim way not as a riparian owner; but i- I in respect of a statutory license, and that it could claim no compensation as I injury was to its statuory right, and I not in respect of its lands. Mr. Martin) also addressed the Court. Mr. SkDvclt, iv.C, on liolmlf of Hie company, contended it was authorised by its 'private Act to construct ihe i tunnel, and that being so, it hud a proI porly in the tunnel. The case wa< I unfinished.