OBSTRUCTING A DRAIN.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2723, 11 October 1894, Page 4

OBSTRUCTING A DRAIN.

At the Magistrates Court, Timaru, on Friday, the case of the Levels Road Board against P. Hoare, for obstructing, a drain on a road near Kerrytown, was heard. Mr White appeared for the Board, and Raymond for defendant. Mr White stated that the defendant, as owner of a rural section, pat np a bank fence on a roadside across a natural drain channel for surface water, so as to prevent the water escaping from the road.' Some time ago the clerk of the Road Board gave him notice that steps would be taken to give a free course to the snrfcce water, and on 14th July notice was given that the Board would make an opening in the fence: to restore the drainage of the road. ' The board made an opening and put a drain pipe in it. Defendant pulled the pipe out and blocked up the hole. The overseer, Mr Annand, saw this and expostulated with defendant. Defendant put in the pipe again, but did not allow it to remain long ; he took it out and put it in again at a higher level, and built up a dam inside the paddock to prevent the water, flowing. Another notice was given defendant of the penalties to which he was liable for interfering with the drain. A few days after defendant shifted the pipe to its proper level, but shortly afterwards '■■ he raised it again, and again banked the. pipe inside with earth. Further notice / was given, but no heed was paid to it. I Everything had been done to induce: defendant to comply with the law before; taking proceedings. J. Scannell, who litres opposite the; fence in question, stated that the original: natural course of storm water was across the road into defendant's land. De-j fendant's fence dammed the surface water. J Be saw a pipe put through the fence, i and he afterwards saw defendant, or his j man, interfering with it more than once, i To Mr Raymond: Until two months ago: the storm water had to get away along \ the road. Some years ago the former i overseer, Mr Wright, on being com- ; plained to about the water collecting, cut j a drain along the road to take it away. That dram had served since till two months ago. W. Annand, overseer, gave evidence in support of Mr White's statement, and produced a sketch showing the locality. The drain which was made carried the water against the fall, the outfall being 4ft deep the upper end nothing. The drain had in course of time got partly filled up with gorse cuttings, etc., and was now useless. The recent action was taken on complaints from the sisters in charge of the Convent school that the j children could not get to school. To Mr Raymond: Took no steps to have the drain cleared; it was a mistake in the first place. Had to lower the land inside the fence by four inches. Understood the ditch was made for the purpose of taking the water away from defendant's land, and it acted for some years. But the proper course for the water was through the fence and not along the road. C. N. Orbell, chairman of the road board, also gave evidence that steps were taken on serious complaints made to the board as to the bad state of the road owing to water lying on it. The ditch referred to was cut by the overseer at the time (in, excess of instructions witness believed) to meat complaints. The ditch had the effect of taking away floods, but never took away all the water. To Mr Raymond: The drain had been a check in floods, but was too expensive to keep open, The board could compel owners to clear the ditch, but what was wanted was to protect the road; the board had nothing to do with protecting private property, only with protecting roads, and they did not think they would be justified in spending rates to protect an owner from flood water in its natural sonrse. Ij,. Hoarp. son of defendant: There was no clear \yater eoursp at all, the water runs over a great width of ground. The ditch when dug answered perfeotly, but Scannell let it get filled up. The ditch was still acting usefully. The overseer had fcp d£g ditphes inside the paddock to get the water away frpm tfre pjpe. Mr Raymoud mentioned a tephnifial objection, but waived it as His Worship said it would siniply mean having the whole thing over again. His Worship said that the board's power was (*lear. He supposed the board did not press for a heapy penalty. Mr White said he w»b jaatrffSitsd not to ask for a penalty, but merely £or vindication of the board's rights.

His Worship ordered defendant to restore the pipe to its place within 24 hours, and to pay costs of court 10s, witness 10s, and solicitor's fJe £2 2s.