MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 369, 10 December 1898, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

YESTERDAY.—(Before Captain Jackson, S.M.) Civil Case.—A. Deverell and Co. v. J. Tu Wheuua. Claim for £4 9s. Mr Buoklaod appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs, 225. , , Trespassing.— Fuur Pukekura settlers sons were charged with trespassing on the Moaua Vale Estate, on Sunday, 13th November, in pursuit of game. They pleaded guilty and were each fined £1 and costs', 16s 6d.—A charge of being in possession of a dead hen pheasant was made against one of the above; but the evidence was very contradictoiy, and the case was dismissed.

HAUTAPU DRAINAGE DISTRICT. Hearing objections to the classifying of the lands of the above district was the next business. Fourteen had been lodged with the Clerk of the Court, bub they had not complied with the provisions of " The Land Drainage Act, 1593," by giving the Board notice of such objections, and they were consequently struck out, after strenuous opposition from Mr Dyer, who appeared for several. An objection was raised by Messrs Dyer and Swarbriek as to assessors sitting with the Magistrate. Mr Buckland, who appeared for the Board, contended they must do so, and the Masiistrate, after an adjournment for consideration, ruled that they should sit. The first case taken was that of Mr W. Selby, for whom Mr Dyer appeared William Stlby deposed he was the owner of 200 acres of land on the boundary of the Hautapu Drainage District. No work of any kind had been done by the Board, and he had no intimation as to what the Hoard intended to do when it was in funds, and he was not to be benefited by any drainage works done by the Board, as his farm at the present was adequatc'y drained. The draips going through his farm brought water for about three miles beyond his boundary, the whole being within the Drainage District. It flowed through a public drain known as Selby's drain, which is now in charge of the Roud Board. If oxistiog drains were kept in order they were, sufficient for his purpose. More drains would be an injury. Cowling's was the lowest farm within the Drainage District, and his was the next. He contended he should be put in the fourth class ; that was exempt. Those living higher up would receive benefits at the expense of those below. By Mr Buckland: The Cambridge R ad Board had kept the drain through his farm in order for years, and it was vested in that Board. His farm derived benefit from that drain. By the Court: He expected the Road Board to keep it in order. Joseph Grainger Ward, farmer, Huu tapn,'deposed : As far as lie knew, Mr Selby's farm was not likely to be benefited by the construction of any drains ; neither did he know of any scheme of drainage intended to be done by the Drainage Board. Any drains the Board made would be for the benefit of the farms above Selby's. By Mr Buckland : He had been in the district four years, aud he had no experience of the land previous to that time. Through Mr Selby's farm was the natural flow of the water for most of the district. By the Court: Messrs Thomas and Ferguson's farms were wetter than Mr Selby's. Enos Beer deposed he had worked on Mr Selby's farm aud knew the position of the drains on it. The farm was sufficiently drained for the class of fannin? Mr Selby went in for. The last year or two he had gone in for the ordinary style of farming. He considered half-a dozen settlers above Mr Selby would be most benefited, and he considered should be classified higher than lie. Messrs Thomas Bros.', Crouch and Ferguson he considered received more benefit than Selby. Those he hvl mentioned, together with Selby's, Parkar's and Hall's farms, would all bo equally wet if there were no drain? By Mr Buckland : Mr Selby's farm would not, in certain places, stand winter crops in its present condition. William Browne deposed he knew Mr Selby's farm, and he made most of the drains upon it. There was no natural flow over the land until he made the drain, except th ough somejraupo. The country was all wet till Mr Selby made the drain. He considered Selby's farm now well drained. By Mr Buckland : It is about seven years since he saw Mr Selby's farm and about 30 since he made the drain. Mr Buckland contended that the Board not having done any work did not signify. The trustees were elected to do the best they could for the benefit of the whole of the ratepayers of the district. He called Jared Allwill, who deposed lie hid known Mr Selby's farm for the past .SO years. It was formerly very wet, but the last two years had been dry. If the drain was not kept clean Mr Selby's farm would be flooded. He did not think a successful scheme of draiuage of the district could be formulated without it going through Mr Selby's land. There ought to have been a Drainage Board years ago. By Mr Dyer : He thought the four farms above Mr Selby's would perhaps benefit a little more than his (Selby's). Wm. Main, who classified the land, deposed that he knew all the district thoroughly. He put Mr Selby's in the first class, because he considered it as wet as any laud in the drainage district, and would be beneficed as much as any by the drain being kept cleau. In heavy floods the water flowed over Mr Selby's lands. By Mr Dyer : In making the classification list he put the wettest land as receiving the most benefit. Thosa he had put in the first class he considered lnd wet land. He did not consider Mr Selby's drains large enough to take away the water that came from above. Heconsidered all lie had put in the first class received equal benefits. He went round when making the classification list with the Chairman 'of the Board. He had not been over Mr Selby's farm for three or four years, but it had a road all round it, and he had seen the land flooded. He saw sufficient from the road to convince him that it should be put in the first class. Henry John Baton, who formerly lived at Hautapu, thought Mr Selby's farm would derive as much benefit as any. He saw the water lying on Mr Selby's farm about two years ago when passing along the road. John Brown deposed that Mr Selby would receivcsimilarbenefit toabouthalf-a-dozen above him. He had seen it lately and it was dry, but swamps were dry now. He did not consider it was dry enough tor ordinary farming in the winter. There were about 100 asres opposite Hall's that were the wettest. 'The Court decided Mr Selby's land should be put in the second class, granting solicitor's costs, £1 Is. On behalf of Mrs Elizabeth Martyn, Mr Swarbriek objected to her land being included in the drainage district. lie called J. S. Potts, manager for Mrs Martyn, who deposed that the whole of the water from the farm was taken in an entirely different direction to Selby's drain, and there was more fall than there could be into that drain. A cutting 10 feet deep had been made through a hill to let the water away. Witness admitted that if the cutting became blocked the water would dam back and flow into Selby's drain. Donald Stubbing produced a plan showing the water"from Mrs Martyn's farm going away from Selby's. William Selby stated the natural flow from Mrs Marty n's farm was away from

his farm. Until the new draiu at Mrs Martyn's was made the water came from her farm on to his property. Jarcd Allwill deposed the water from Mrs Martyn's land formerly ran into Sclby!s drain. He thought Lots 85 and 80 (100 acres) of Mrs Martyn's should be iu the second class, about 25 acres of the other part in third class, and the remainder in the fourth class. William Main, the classifier, deposed he had lived on and managed Mrs Martyn's farm for about three years, about 10 years ago. He considered the classification he had made was a fair one. The natural flow of the water from the farm was on to Selby's, but he had not seen any going that way for three or four years. There was a drain on No. 1 Station Road that now prevented water going on to Mrs Martyn's land. He considered the best way to drain part of the Broadmeadow's farm would be into Selby's drain, if a pood comprehensive scheme of draiuage was iuaugura'ed. By Mr Swarbriek : When he managed Mrs Martyn's farm, the new system of drainage had not been instituted. W. H. Thomas, chairman of the Drainage Board, deposed he did not ask Mrs Martyn to sign the petition. He did not tell Mr Potts—Mrs Martyn's mauager—that the land would be exempt from rating. The object of the Boavd was to make a comprehensive drain in the old watercourse, into which all the ratepayers could drain their farms to relieve them of storm water which destroyed the crops. Ho had seen water flowing into Selby's from M rs Martyn's farm siuce the new drains had been made upon that farm. He did not ask Mrs Martyn's to sign the petitiou for a Drainage Board, because he did not think she would sign it. That concluded the evidenca. The Court decided that lots 85 and 86 be put in the second class instead of the first, and 84 and 87 in the third instead of the second.