(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 293, 11 September 1873, Page 5

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Tuesday, September 2, Pearson v. Blundell. —This was an action to recover £20 for damage said to be done by defendant to plaintiff's land. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant. Mr. M'Coy said that plaintiff would be satisfied with nominal damages. Prom the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that BlundeJl has a water race in o!ose proximity ti> plaintiffs land, and on several occasions he had diverted the water over plaintiff's paddock to a lower race, by which means the damage complained of had been done. Plaintiff calculated that it would take at least £10 to replace the soil which had been carried away by the water. He had apprised the defendant of the damage his race was doing, and asked him to stop it; but he replied that if he did bo he would let it run on another part of the paddock. In cross-examination by Mr. Copland, plaintiff said he knew defendant's race had done the damage, as he stopped the water done the damage, as he stopped the water when spoken to about it, after which no more damage was done. Mrs. Pearaon, wife of plaintiff, corroborated her husband's evidence. She calculated that from 26 to 28 superficial yards of soil had been completely carried away. For the defence, Mr. Copland called the defendant, Abraham Blundell, who deposed that he had held a water race near plaintiff's ground 10 or 12 years. There was a small hole about 2 feet from the race, which Mr. Lancaster, when he owned the paddock now possessed by Mr. Pearson, wished always kept full of water, and to this, in addition to an underground current, defendant attributed the damage done to plaintiff's ground. Said current existed long before any water race was made in the country. He had allowed the water to run over plaintiff's ground in order to take it up at a lower level. When Pearson told him the water was doing damage, he turned it on another part of the ground, and then asked plaintiff if it was doing any harm, to which he replied "It is doing no good." If he (defendant) was not allowed to run the water over the paddock, the race would be no good to him. He did not believe any damage whatever had been done to plaintiff's ground by the water. A. Motherwell and Thos. Peters gave evidence corroborative of defendant's evidence. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of £1, with costs of court, 19s. Carr and Willis v. B. Lancaster. —Claim of £42 Bs. Mr. Copland for plaintiffs; Mr. M'Coy for defendant. There was a set-off amounting to £31 put in, and Mr. M'Coy pleaded not indebted for the balance of the account. Willis objected to several items in the set-off, amounting to £17 in all, which his Worship allowed, thus reducing the set-off to £14, leaving a balance due by defendant of £28 6s. 10d., for which judgment was given, with costs of court, 253., and professional costs, 2 guineas.