COMPENSATIN COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 12765, 19 March 1906, Page 6

COMPENSATIN COURT.

(Before J,; F. Woodhouse, Esq., Arbitrator.) ! The hearing. of the' claim of James ColnmV farmer, against the Otakia Drainpage Board -was resumed at the Mosgiel Courfhouae this morning, before Mr J. F. Woodhouse, arbitrator. Mr J. F. M, Eraser, appeared on behalf of the claimant, Mr J. C. Stephens for the School Commissioners/and John MacGregor for the defendant Board. James Thomas Gibson, chairman of the Otoiaa Drainage Board, was further crossexamined by Mr J. C. Stephens. By the term "wing walls" used in his evidence on Friday he meant the walls of the dam up to Sounmess'e fence on the west, and to the cross-cut on the east. The Board erected soma additional embankments in December, 1902, through Reid's property. The work actually done was the banking of the canal on both sides. He could not say if specifications had been prepared for the work, though he admitted that the minutes stated that they were. Had they been prepared they would have been prepared by tho Hoard themselves—they employed no engineer at- ;that time. They were" not in Bis possess™ If„ those specifications were in the Boards box they would be produced. On the occasion of the work l«iw done on Keid s property no levels were tiken. No specifications were prepared for, the 1903 ,r - a,nd Sounness put in pegs at practically a uniform level, so as to show the exact amount of material ho be pus in." IneworK was about a chain wide at the extreme end of the dam oidy. The stfes £ ioao *?, a<l heaL previously in1902-thQt was up to the fence and the cross-cut, • The levels they rook were taken with a rule. The work was done by dav tabor. The™ was no contract, Thev had no records of the levels of the dam in" 1903 except the additional Sin put on. measured by foot-rule. The portion of the dam in fcmmness's ? n f ' b * ««st side was not fenced. Jhe rest of the dam was. Tn respect to Edes contract in 1904, MovnihanSronM have acted under instructions from the Board. Height* of the banking to be done would have been given him bv the Board. (I he witness pouted out on the plan the dimensions of the work then carried on.) J hey took the height of the necessary tanking by tie height tbev km«w the water hnd risen at previous floods. Witness personally inspected the work. Mr Movnihan was present on that ocnasion. and expressed himself flaiisfied. Moymihan might"'lave said he was convinced that the embankment through his property would be no good. That was after the flood of 1904 not before. The object of the raising of the embankment was to benefit MoynihanV propertv. The Board wished to "embank on the biefc ground, but Movnihan wanted the banking to be done-in the depressions- His opinion' was that Moynihan's plan wns not <t> effective ' as the Board's. He rememb°red an interview in 1902 between Mr Moynihan. himself, Mr Souness. Mr Borrie. Mr Macandrew, and Mr Dallas. Those School Commissioners present on that occasion were of the opinion that the banking would do good. He did not remember Mt Moynihan's expressing an adverse opinion,' though he would not swear that he did not so express himself. H e had no doubt the embankments through Moynihan's were" to be raised above flood levels. He presumed the raising of the dam would affect the efficacy of those embankments. Mr Movnihan and he mutually arranged the 'height of the embankments, but he could not now recollect the exact particulars, though he had no doubt some definite' height was determined; what it was he could not say. He had no distinct recollection as to whether Moynihan provided levels, but he presumed something of that kind must have taken place. He thoueht something was suggested by members of the Otakia Drainage Board in conpultation - with Moynihan regarding the height of the banking! The whole of one of Reid's contracts in 1905 comprised banking from the cross-cut round the dam, and up the west side below the creek. Regarding certain work in June, 1904, referred to on the minutes, thnt was some banking to be done on W. G. Reid's property, necessitated through a, defective embankment erected in 1902. There were no plans and specifications for this work, neither were anv levels taken.* He gave directions to Reid," but did not remember the height Reid was instructed to build the embankment. Reverting, to the work done v by Reid in 1905, that was done on top of the old embankment up to that point where it turned in on to his (Reid's) property. He did not know the height of the 'dam from surface level at any period of its existence. The flood of 1900 did not affect him much. It was a very big Taieri River flood, and Duck Creek was also fairly high. It was overflowing above Mr Moynihan's .property, and was overflowing towards Henley as well. At that time there were three days' heavy rainfall on the Taieri. The embankments on the river on that occasion did not break away, but the water overflowed. That special rainfall had not the effect on Momona that subsequent falls had. Previous to 1900 there had been a period of verv dry years, and the ground was considerably cracked, consequently there would be an exceptional amount of absorption. Since 1900 there had been practically a succession of wet years. This would mean that the subsoil would never be really dry all that time. He had actually no personal knowledge of how the 1900 flood affected Momona. In 1902 there was a local flood. The river was high then, but not bank high. There was not much difference in the rainfall of 1902 and any of the rainfalls in 1905. He could not remember how Momona was affected in 1902: neither could he remember how Moynihan was affected, though he did not think the bank of the creek at .his property was overflowed. He could not remember if there was any flood in 1903. but there was one in September, 1904. There were then about three days' heavy rain. (Left sitting.)