CONCERNING A DRAIN.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 102, 2 May 1911, Page 7

CONCERNING A DRAIN.

• ■ Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, John Jamee Boyd, builder, of Wellington, was cued by the Wellington City Corporationi for £5 19s lOd, alleged to be due by defendant as his proportion, of a private drain laid through certain properties in Elizabeth-street. Th© City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Sbpa.) represented the plaintiffs and Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for deriendant. In stating his case, Mr. Q'Shea. explained that under the Wellington City Drainage Empowering Act ; 1894, the corporation laid a private drain to take the place of an old box drain that had been discovered when, the original combined sey«r and storm-water .drain was laid some years ago. Under section 4 of the Act the council had elected to do the work itself, after the cost of the new drain had been ascertained and apportioned. Property-holdere concerned Were served with notice on 22nd June, 1909, and the work was completed ■before 11th October, 1909, at a' cost of £32 6s 3d. Defendant owned certain properties affected, anil his proportion of the cost had been assessed by the City Engineer. Demands for payment were made, but the money had not been, paid. Tha City Engineer's certificate wae produced in accordance with the bylaw. Mr. Findlay applied for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff had placed no proof before the court and that the drain wap a private drain. Plaintiffs, he contended, had tendered evidence as to the discovery of the drain, but there ,wae no evidence that it had not been ,put down by a public body to serve a public purpose. As a further ground, lor nonsuit counsel submitted that the certificate put in by plaintiffs was no proof that the City Engineer had properly apportioned tho costs, and there ,was no proof 'that notice had been Served on. any of the other owners concerned, whereas counsel contended this twao essential. Decision was reserved. Bishop Julius yesterday celebrated hismajority as head of the Anglican Diocese of Chmtchurch. Commenting editorially on this fact, the Lyttelton Times says : "He cannot be allowed to pass hi» twenty -first episcopal birthday without flome word of recognition and ; appreciation from the community in ! ■which he has laboured fio long and so zealously. We are not concerned at the moment with any question of religion, for fortunately of later years Chratcharch has been blessed / with church Venders who, while faithfully attending *o their sectarian duties, have shown themselves to be broad-minded citizens. Bishop Julius is on* of these. I-Je lias always given his sympathy and his support to every public movement that has had for its object the_ betterment of the community. Certainly, he has never essayed politics, but outside the church door he has identified him«plf with tho social t life of the people, he has joined in their legitimate aimieeitients, he has given freely to charities, he has wssociatjed himself with dozens of public-spirited movements, and his advice and sympathy have been readily available -whenever they have been required. Everybody who is at all interested knows what progress his Church has made m the diocese during his long administration, .and the fact that he has held his ofnoe cheerfully and entht"casttcai]y for twenty-one yeaia is. perhaps, the beet testimonial Fate could have written for him. He has kept the respect and the esteem of his own particular flock for more years than many of us care to count backward*. It may be safely left to his Church" to fittingly recognise h" 'coming of age,' but Cbrfctchurch and Canterbury as well owe him a debt of gratitude for his un* failing ami practical display of the qualifies that constitute a^ogd cttiaen.