£18,600 DAMAGES CLAIMED.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19734, 26 September 1929, Page 13

£18,600 DAMAGES CLAIMED.

CASE AGAINST RIVER TRUST. FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. Much evidence was heard in the Compensation Court yesterday in the case in which James Wright, or Wright's Farm, Kaiapoi Island, is claiming £ 16,641 from the Wrnvarumriri River Trust for compensation fur land taken ! for the new cut. The t".-o sons, GorI don Wolaeley Wright, and Ewart Kolieatou Wright, are also claiming £2OIO ou account of blocking up overflow channels; alleging also that the embankments dammed back the flood-water, Hooding their i ail d which adjoins their father's property. All the cases are | I'tiiiy heard together. j Mr Justice Kennedy presided, and j with him were Kir 'Walter Stringer j (assessor for the claimants), and Mr E. Boid, of Wellington (assessor for tiie i Trust';. Mr A. F. Wright and Air W. J. Sim appeared for James Wright, Mr Sim appearing also for the som, and Mr F. W. Johnston and Mr K. W. White for the Trust. Mr A. F. Wright recalled the Hon. Mr Buddo to make a correction in evidence given by him the previous day. iie said that a mistake had been made iu estimating the value of Wright's farm, the unimproved value having been given instead of the improved value, and in estimating the income from ten acres of lucerne, hay, and seed clover, which should be £153 instead of £SB. The corrections left the gross income at £2.'.3, , 5. The expenditure was £ 195S 17s, leaving a net profit of £57(5 3s, instead of £6Ol, as stated by him previously. Claimant's Evidence. James Wright said that he had been on the farm sinee 1559, when his father had it. Witness had farmed the property since ISBO. The land had been subject to flooding more or less, and the floods had improved the soil considerably. There always had been big floods every twenty-two years or so. There were small freshes in the river I year by year. In a big flood the backing up of Greig's drain caused wator to collect on the lower part of the farm. For many years the Cutting stream had carried the main body of water. The stop-bank on Mr Wright's land from the Cutting bridge to the Kaikanui creek had been erected forty-five or fifty years, and the stop-bank from Kaikanui creek to Hay ward's was erected a little later. His own bank from the Cutting bridge to the Kaikanui creek had never been broached by a flood from November, 1920. He remembered the flood of 1905, when Mr Alexander was killed. The water reached the top of his bank, and there was an overflow about ten chains from Coutts's bridge. His bank had not been damaged then. Between that time and November, 1926, the water had never broken over his bank.

"I think you have from time to time raised that bank at your own expense ?'' counsel asked.

Witness: We raised it from 15 to IS inches from Coutts's bridge to the Kaikanui creek.

In reply to a question, witness said that he did not suffer any flood damage in 1925, and did not petition Parliament. He remembered there was a flood about 1925. It broke through Taylor's road and went down through Hassall's, Hay wards, and right down on to the North road. There might have bean a little on his land, but not much. "Did you at any time take any action with regard to that main stopbank T" counsel asked. Witness: I told the Trust authorities that if they did that, and did not raise the other bank from Kaikanui creek to Coutts's bridge, it was going to wash me out. I was told, in reply, that the few must suffer for the many. Witness said that he considered his farm to be worth £IOO an acre, and the buildings and improvements worth £2070. He had received offers for his property, but he had been reluctant to sell. He had received an offer of £ll2 an acre at the time of the boom, and had turned it down. That offer included the buildings as well. There was an old wooden building on one corner of the 49 acre section, but it was liable to be condemned at any moment. If it were not let to his own son, he would have to erect a new building on it, and that would cost him about £IOOO. He considered that the damage he had sustained by that severance was about £BOO. That laud had seldom been subjected to flooding. The 62 acres on the north side had also been worked from his homestead. Blood Thicker, than Water. To Mr Sim: He considered £5 10s a fair rental for his land. "And why did you let it so cheaply to your boys!" Mr Sim asked. "Blood runs thicker than water," was tho reply. "It was my duty to rent it to them more reasonably than to an outsider" What was the cause of your flooding in 1926 f m Witness said that part of the cause was the large banks erected at Dixon's and the fact that one bank was higher than the other. The large stopbank had thrown the water down on him to a far greater extent than it would have come Lad there been no stop-bank. The 1905 flood was a very big one, and he suffered no damage from it. Mr Whites Was not one of your banks broached-in 1905f

Witness: Who told you that? His Honour (sharply): Answer the question, witness. Witness: No, it wasn't. Mr White: Did it not broach the bank below the dividing fence into the lucerne paddock? No. it flowed over the top. Witness added that thirty years ago it was possible to ride the Coutts's cutting bridge. His own children had ridden to school under the bridge. To Mr Johnston: The offer of £ll2 was not made to him in writing. "Have you ever, at any time, placed a value of less than £7O an acre on you landf" Mr Johnston asked. "I was once caught napping," witness confessed.

Mr Johnston: I'm surprised. Witness: For a purpose though. It was 25 years ago. Sir Walter Stringer: That's a bit late, Mr Johnston Mr Johnston: In recent years have vou placed a value in the region of £lo,oo<i on your property, including buildings I Witness: No, I always wanted £20,000, and that's what it's worth at present. It would be a mistake to say you represented your property as worth £II,OOOf —1 never offered it at that to anybody. Mr Sim: May we not protest, yo-r Honour- The witness is an old man, 78 years of age and he is asked to go cv.r the whole range of his long history and repeat conversations made years ago. We know of one ocension and my friend can come to the poicr. Counsel: When was your last land valuation! Witness: About eight years ago. Can you remember what value you put on this property T—l did aot valoe it, bat ta« value wae put op 20 p* r

cent, and I applied for a reduction. We spent three hours coming to a settlement.

Mr A. F. Wright objected to the questions, contending that the return made by a taxpayer was privileged. "Keturns given to a State Department are purely confidential," he said. Mr Johnston: I have subpmnaed the Department. If my friend does not want to make it public 1 can hand it up to the witness and ask him if it is correct. To the witness: This is your signa- | ture? —Yes. Civil Engineer's Views. ! Harvey Maitland Chrystall, civil engineer, examined by Mr Sim, said that he had especially studied the Waimakariri river from the public point of view and otherwise. The Trust had put in groynes on the south branch. The effect of the groynes built by the Trust had been to divert more water on to Wright's farm. The whole basin was more or less divided up into unduia- ; tions. The country north of the northern stop-bank fell away from the bank for about half a mile, and that had in his opinion tended to-take a body of water down towards Kalapoi. He had in 1926 seen water "■oing down that way in the big flood. The Kakanui creek would certainly relieve the area of water before the stopbanks were put up. As an expert he would sav that Mr Wright's land would have avoided being flooded. The effect of the two stop-banks would be to throw the concentrated flow on to Mr Wright's property. The effect on the basin outlet and the stop-bank outlet would be to cut them off. In his opinion the works of the Trust were the cause of Mr Wright's land being flooded in 1926, and if the works had not been there Mr Wright's land would not have flooded. He was taking into consideration that it was an exceptional flood. The cut through Wright's land was part and parcel of the Xo. 2 scheme as pub lished by the Trust. It rva* the only necessary link to complete the scheme. They could have minimised the risk by taking about 90 feet of silt from under Coutts's cutting bridge. The rising of Wright's own bank would materially have assisted. The removal of the willows would have allowed more flood water to proceed downstream. To Mr White: As constructed the food capacity would be 20,000 cusecs, in his opinion, but without the restrictions the flood capacity would he 30,000 or even 40,000 cusecs.

Further Evidence. James Stevenson, farmer, of Flaxton, a few miles north of Mr Wright's farm, said that he was a member of the Canterbury Land Board and was also a member of the Land Purchase Board of Canterbury. He had known Mr Wright's farm for 45 years. For allround purposes he did not know a better farm in Canterbury. Kaiapoi Island was famed all over New Zealand for its production. Gibbs Stanton, farmer, of Woodend, estimated the value of Mr Wright's farm, including land, buildings, and. every other improvement, at £llO an acre. He estimated the rental value at £5 an acre. William Henery Nicholls, public accountant, Christchureh, said that basing the goodwill on a rental of £6 an acre and allowing the leases from Wright to Ms sons four more years to run, he valued the leases at £970 4s. Mr Sim said that the sons claimed £80!) on that score, and it was not intended to alter that claim.

Francis Josepu Smaller, farmer, North road, Kaiapoi, said that he had seen no flood water on Wright's farm, except on a small area, before 1925, but it was susceptible to floods after that year. The flooding was, in his opinion, eaused by the Trust erecting large banks which prevented the water spreading, and concentrated it on Wright's farm. The homestead block, including all buildings, . was worth £13,200. He had sold 52 acres adjoining his present farm for £lO9 an acre, including the improvements, valued at £BOO or £9OO.

The Court then adjourned until this morning.