LAND FLOODED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18968, 5 April 1927, Page 7

LAND FLOODED.

EU.ESMERE COUNTY SUED. ■DRAIN ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED DAMAGE. i . ' ■■ Evidence for the defence w M given yesterday j n the Compensation Court. *-hf« th» third day's hearing of a claim by George Herbert Barnett. farmer against the E-lesmcre County-Coun-cil. The claim was for £7OO a 3 compensation for Ibsa arising "out of the cona.ructio.i of a drain by the County Council, on the north side of Tram-*iiy-roiid. or reserve rtmnin? adjacent to the lr»nd. "The h'earia* I':, ""? i;is Ho ' n ««"- -■*< Justice AfTor the council. :,mi :,!;• A. J. [-.-.wood assessor for claimant. v, . V,r# J - ,CJi;;i - '•'■•iti: aim Mr .L\ \V. ' ,f e - "PPeared for Barnett. and ilr J- ••■I. Upham. represented the Coantv Comic: 1. ' ■ - John Nt.:ii- U> .rath-eJ fanner, 'Chi-ist-c lurch. said. : that when lie farmed in live district the land was flooded once every seven or eight rears. If' the County Council had exercised its powers and had taken the'willows out of Hill l creel;- twenty year* ago. ;,o damage would..'have been done. ■ iiir Sim: Do you remember whether , there v.- U :j a block in the corner of the farm thirty years ago?. . Witness: I am certain that there was no such block, twenty-four years ago. George Slater, of Christehurch, surveyor, called by Mr llpham, expressed his opinion that th? flooding'of Barnett's farm was caused by springs. James P. 'Wilson, employed bv the Public Trust Office as : u farm inspector and agricultural .oxpqrt, said, that; the north side of Tramway road was the best place to take the water. The locality was springs country, but the springs were.not affected by the drain. He did not think that there had been any damage to Barnett's farm, or that there was prospective damage to it, on account of the drain. Albert Freeman, valuer said that the prospect of blocking Tramway road wa3 very remote. Cross-examined by Mr Sim, witness stated that he doubted whether the pipe had ever been running full last winter'. He thought that the quantity of water would be negligible. Ho stated tkat Mill creek was in a foul state where it touched Barnett?s land. Thomas Breers, farmer, Leeston, stalled that the winter of 1925 was the wettest lie had 'known.- -"When he first came ■Barnett drew his attention., to the'.-dam iat the corner and told him that it ■was his particular: interest to maintain it. He. did not know who had removed the dam. The removal "of. the dam caused the water to rush across to Barnett's land.' Frederick Charles -Coonibe, assistant, District Public Trustee, Christehurch, stated that Barnett eoraplained that ■the drain had been:.removed, in March. "Witness had inspected the farm, and seen the dam partly broken, and the water .coming over. His' impression was there waß about 9 inches of the-top of, tho dam out,: and'there. wa3.water running through, it about four inches deep. He did not notice'any water running, over .the road. There was a good deal ,of water: in the drains, both, in the drain along Anderson's road and. Tramway road. It seemed to-hira that both these: drains v.-ero badly in need ofcleaning: Patrick JoEeph Dempsey, formerly employed on Barnett'a farm, stated that When he was there the property was-not affected by the removal of the dam. The state of. the creel:-.was bud... He thought that- the 'creek' affected : the drainage on Barnett 'a farm. Cross-examined by Mr Sim. witness etalcd that, the crop's had'not. been /affected 'to any degree by flooding, in the time that he had been there.'_ The case was adjourned until 2.15 p.m. to<day. The-Court will visit the locality this, morning.'-.