JURISDICTION OVER RIVER BED

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LIV, Issue 9028, 6 November 1925, Page 3

JURISDICTION OVER RIVER BED

SI'PHEMK COUHT DIiTISIOX. A Ci\H- of defining the jurisdiction of a River Board was the subject of a n - •serve.l judgment delivered hy Hi, Hou--0,11 ■ dust ice Ostler. m the Appeal Conn mi the Ard ins j. The appellant ttas the Alukonea River Board ( \Vairarapaj and tlie respondents the elnurnian, eotmeiilors and inlmhitants of tiie Wairarapa. South County, The iuefs of die case, as set forth in the judgment, wore that in 19TT7 the appelant hoard was formed, in di'trict being defined hy proclamation a> “towards ihe north and east generally hy the \V aiohins river as far as the Alnho- • ioa creek.’ • I n T9tM a fresh proclamation included Hie south Taank in its jnrisdietion. The object of the hoard was to protect the land adjacent to the river, the hed of which filled up with gravel brought from the hills in floodtime. and diverting the waters on to the surrounding country, lu order to ensure that gravel would he removed only from such places as would benefit the River Hoard’s objective. the hoard decided to charge Is per load for all gravel removed ;this sum being to pay a tally clerk who would see that the gravel was not taken from such places as would endanger the hoard’s protective works* The upspondeut comity, without obtaining a permit from the hoard, proceeded to remove gravel, and refused to pay the sum of l s per loud imposed. An action was brought against them in the Magistrate’s Court, v hen the hoard was nonsuited, and it is from this judgment that the appeal was lodged. His Honour in his judgment, alter cpiotiug lengthy authority, said: — “In Kingdon v. The Hutt River .Hoard the full court considered the corresponding section of the Act in 188-1 and an earlier Act of 187(1. which were- in the same terms as section 78 of the Act of 1908. and expressly decided that that section l\sd the effect of vesting in a river hoard the property in (lip bed of a river within its district that property however, being limited t■ < give a only such rights as were necessary for the carrying mi| of its duties as a river hoard. fam 'honrul to follow that decision. That ease further decided that a river hoard can remove from fhe Tied of a river vested in it any shingle necessary for the purpose of slraighiening, controlling. or improving the course of the river, without having to pay a, compensation to riparian owners For the shingle taken. It also decided that a. riparian owner had no right without the consent of the hoard, to remove shingle from the bed of a river vested in the iijoat'iT. It is, in rny opinion, a corollary of this proposition that no other perssn had any such right without the board’s consent; and that the hoard,has the right t° prohibit all persons from taking shingle from the hed of a river vested in it; or on the other hand, to allow anyone to remove shingle if the removal is necessary for the purpose of straightening, controlling, or improving the course of the river. Appeal allowed, hut without costs, and ease remitted to lower court so that judgment may be entered for appellant board for the amount of the claim with costs on the scale allowed in that court.’’