Farmer’s Appeal Over Railway Land

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31907, 7 February 1969, Page 3

Farmer’s Appeal Over Railway Land

A Greenpark farmer, Gordon Nurse, yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Land Settlement Board in granting a piece of disused railway land to a neighbouring farmer, Lawrence Williams.

The land is part of the former Lincoln-Little River railway line and lies more or less between the properties of Mr Nurse and Mr Williams. It comprises 32 acres of railway reserve and six acres) upon which the line itself was 1 built. Mr Nurse said he needed the land because it was flood free and could serve as a refuge for stock. His total holding was barely economic and flooding had prevented him from persevering with either dairy or sheep farming. Mr Williams claimed that the land was vital for his I town milk supply dairy farm. The case is being heard before Mr Justice Wilson. Mr J. G. Leggat appears for Mr Nurse and Mr G. T. Mahon for Mr Williams. Mr W. S. Smith appeared for the Land Settlement Board. He said the board would abide by the decision of the Court. Mr Mahon said the case was an appeal by way of rehearing. The Court had to decide what the decision of the Land Settlement Board should have been in 1965. The events which had taken place since were not relevant. Mr Nurse said he held 166 acres of leasehold land at Greenpark and had an in- | terest in a further nine acres, iHe had been refused a serviceman’s loan on the ground ' that his farm was an nnecoinomic unit. The State Advances Cori poration and friends had lent | him money with which to | stock the land. He had started i dairy farming in 1953, but because of the type of soil and flooding problems he had no alternative but to take on sheep farming.

Mr Nurse said his farm had not been prosperous, and everything that would grow had to be utilised. When he had taken over the farm there was a small house. in bad repair .which he had repaired and added to as money became available. Six hundred square feet had been added by Mr Nurse himself.

He had worked the farm without labour except for help at harvesting. He had stocked the farm to capacity but in times of flood had only nine acres of high ground.

On two occasions 160 acres of his farm had been covered by water, including all his lambing feed.

Mr Nurse said that Mr William’s property adjoined his on two sides. Mr Williams's holding had increased, and he had engaged in training racehorses besides farming. Mr Nurse said his wife had had to work to make ends meet. He would not have been able to carry on otherwise.

Cross-examined by Mr Mahon, Mr Nurse said he had lost lambs during flooding. Last autumn he had bought 900 lambs, but had been forced to sell 600 because of flood conditions. In times of serious flooding most properties in the district were affected.

He agreed that changes at the Lake Ellesmere outlet had to some extent reduced the threat of flooding. Mr Nurse said he had de-j f cided to give up sheep farm-1 < ing and take on cropping’! after his income had dropped i < sharply in 1966. i Douglas Davies, a research)] officer for Kempthorne Prosser, Ltd. and Lindsay Gallo-h way, a sheep and wool officer) 1 with the Department of Agri-11

culture told the Court of the flooding and salination problems confronting farmers in the area.

Mr A. H. P. Horton, a field officer of the Lands and Survey Department, said he was asked to make an economic report on Mr Williams’s land, but was not asked to make a report on Mr Nurse’s. As far as he knew no other officer of the Lands and Survey Department made a report on Mr Nurse's property. Without the railway reserve Mr WilI Ham's land would not be economic even allowing for drainage works already done. The hearing was adjournc-’ to a day to be fixed.