REDDIN V. HONEYCHURCH.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 23, 18 July 1868, Page 3

REDDIN V. HONEYCHURCH.

(To the Editor of the Tuapeka Times.) Sib,— Will you kindly allow me space in your paper to lay before the public the following facts, relative to a case brought before the Warden's Court— Redclin v. | Honeychurch— on June 28th, in whicli ! plaintiff sued defendant for the sum oi £10, damages sustained from an overflow of water,.- caused by an embankmenj erected by defendant across some low 1 ground *n proximity to my premises

-T}ie facts of .the casfe arfe.simp'ty thsse_:"f— Tiie embankment referred to is tight le&P •« wjde, f our x feet ,high the original svface-'l'aJofr the embankment to ]tlie top . Of embankment); and 104 feet (long.* | During tiie late heavy rains my placp was . ' flooded to the depth of one floot thre* * inched. ' I immediately entered an action against Honeychurch and party, as stated above, wishing them either to remove the ' embankment or otherwise remedy theevil. Howevetf",< when the assessors cams down, they said the damage was sustained through natural causes, and consequently no order was made by the Warden torepair the injury ; in fact, the Warden was quite " snubbish." Now,, sir, if a. man set fire to a haystack, in all human. < propability the stack would be bvumed ;; and it does not require any vast pen'etra- ' tive power to discover that if an embankment, such as I have described, is placed across low ground, it will dam back the running water, to the no small annoyance of parties in proximity to itBefore this embankment was constructed,, the water, which in times of flood overflowed the banks of the creek, ran uninterruptedly down the low ground referred to, and caused no damage; but now, every flood that swells the creek above its banks finds its way into my dwelling. I should have appealed against the decision of the assessors, but I found, on consideration, that the other parties in the case were not worthy the expense. I would like to know, sir, whether or not the Warden had the power to order the. removal of a portion of the embankment,, so as to allow the drainage to flow down its original course (as the parties werenot in possession of miners' right when the dispute arose), without causing the unnecessary expense of a lawsuit. I wish also to correct a misstatemsnt which occurred in your report, in last week's paper, of the application in the Warden's Court by me for permission to construct a tail-race. The true state of the case is as follows : -An abandoned tail-race was taken up by Honejrchurch and party without having maoe the usual application, or being possessed of miners' rights. This race Honeychurch and party worked up for about 4000 feet. On the 29fch June I mads application for permission to construct a tail-race into the above-mentioned race ; and on the following day Honeychurch and party made application to register the race they were using. Owing to the Warden's absence at Waipori, the hearing of both cases was adjourned till the following . Friday. On the hearing of the. applications, the Warden said that if Honeychurch and party had no right he (the Warden) would grant them one ; he also told my agent that if I wished to construct my race, I could do so on bringing down the assessors, and paying compensation for construction, and would pay no attention to my prior light of application, or to my objection to a certificate being granted to Honeychurch and party, which I consider not just. C. R. Reddik.