COMPENSATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 12768, 22 March 1906, Page 2

COMPENSATION COURT.

THE MOiiOSA CLAIMS. (Before J. F. Woodhouse. Esq., Arbitrator.) The following evidence was taken after we went to press yesterday : Latham Osborne Beal, further cross-ex-amined by Mr Fraser, remembered an exactly similar case to this that he had investigated. It was at Waihi; he took levels made surveys, and sent in plans and a report. He quoted other cases in which Lis authority had been accepted. The, depressions at Moynihan’s, and at the cross-' cut, he designated “by-washes.” There was a great similarity between Moynihou's creek, the cross-cut, .and the dam with a water-race; the essential principles were the same. He considered the depression at the rtrawstack at the back of the crosscut as a by-wash. There were other bywashes near, which nullified the action of that particular by-wash. Hie same remark applied to the depression iu tire cross-cut near the dam. Water would flow over the end of the dam before it would over the sides. He would not admit that under flood conditions the water in Moynihan’s basin would affect Momona at all.. The whole of the works at Moynihan’s under ordinary conditions did affpet Momona to some degree. The effect of the works as a whole was to raise the level of Duck Creek, and this, under ordinary conditions, lessened the flow from Momona. It did not follow that ihat effect was increased proportionately to the increase in Moynihan’s creek. Another inch of water above normal conditions in the basin would mean another inch in Duck Creek, and a similar increase in proportion around the wings. Ibis Was so as long as the tide remained low. A high river did not aggravate the mischief. It would take three or four days’ continuous rainfall to convert the plain into a lake. Hack) Creek became stopped almost immediately. He knew nothing about the flood level of ISOS from his own knowledge. He was not surprised that witnesses should have ‘said the water was lapping level with the dam, and they probably gave honest opinions, though their attention was not particularly directed on the level. It was a practical impoesibility for the water to have been nearer than, five inches from the top of the dam. He was prepared to swear that the water would not be level with the top of the dam, and would contradict anyone who said it was. The backing up of the water was only affected in an infinitesimal degree by the current in Moynihaa’s creek. Under flood conditions the water above the escape would remain at a higher level than the water in the creek at the lower end. In other words, the get-away of the water over the depression would maintain the creek at a higher level above than below. Supposing Moynihan’s creek and the cross-cut were backed lip level with the dam in flood-time, and there) were no by-washes, he did nob think there would be any effect on Momona. Mr Stark had, in his evidence, omitted two considerations which the expert evidence for the claimants had not considered—namely, tide effects, and the natural get-away at Momona. He did not agree with Mr Noble Anderson’s conclusions.- Sir Anderson had overlooked tho effects of the high river, of the tide, and of the natural get-away at Momona. He held to the opinions he had expressed. Rc would be surprised to hear that in 1905 Robertson had to cut furrows through his land towards Momona in order to drain it. The first time ho heard from Mr Gibson that ho was flooded by a flow of water from Momona was when lie gave his evidence in this case. Sounness had told him that the water had come down from the direction of Momona. The Court then adjourned till 10.50 this morning.