HASTINGS R.M. COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9340, 8 April 1893, Page 4

HASTINGS R.M. COURT.

Friday, April 7. (Before Mr A. TurnbuU.R.M.) CIVIL CASES. In each of the following cases judgment whs Riven for tin' plaintiff: — Arvedson v. Hawkins and Crovrlny, claim £7 15s, costs 13i, solicitor.) tee £1 I*. "Vaughan v. Eru te Tua, claim £21 10? 81, coiia 47?, solicitors fee £2 2s. Foreman v. Jfficierf. claim £12 10s 3J, coats 20=i. The following judgment snnnnoun cusci were dealt with :— Gibbons v. Blake, £43 10-i 7rf, defendant to pay the nmonnr forthivitli or in default one month's imprisonment. O'Keilly v, Houo Hapukn, £7 la Id, defendaut to pay tho amount forthwith or two weeks' imprisonment, Johnetone v. Hamiora Tnpaea, £26 14 a 6d, defendant to pay the amount forthwith or three weeks' imprisonment. Masters v the Mayor and Borough Conncil of Hastings. — This was a claim of JHOO as damages for the flooding of plaintiff's hop garden by the action of the Council. Mr P. S. M'Lean appeared for tlin plaintiff and Mr Loughnan for the defendants. Mr M'Jjean In opening tlio case stated that it was an action agniust the Conncil for damage done to the hop gurden owned by the plaintiff. When the laud was owned by Mr Tanner there was a drain through the hop garden, but when it was cat up into sections and sold to other owners the drain Vcame blocked up. The Council had no right to bring a drain from other parts of the borongh and pour it on to plaintiffs land without au agreement with him ; and they were responsible for the consequences. Away back to Warren-street all the land was drained on to plaintiffs property, In spite of the notices which they received the defendants turned the water into plaintiffs drain. Tha damage stated to have been snstained by him had been limited to £100 to bring it within the jurisdiction of the R.M. Court, but it really amounted to £170. Alfred Masters stated that he was the owner of sections 48 and 49 of the hop gardens at Kiverslea. There was a culvert crossing the Havelock-road at sections 48 and 49. It was there when plaintiff iirst went on to the garden. There was a public drain on the side of the road opposite to the hop garden. At the time that he first went to the garden, there was no outlet to thia drain. In 1884 the water from the cnlvert went through the hop gardens drain. The drain rnnniDg through the M'lvor and Wyabb's paddock was blocked np in 1887 or 1888. In 1889 the hop gardens were free from water lying on the land and in the drain. The Boil was very porous. The drain on the opposite side of the road wns deepened in July, 1891. In June, 1892, there were heavy rains. At that time the drain running throngh Apperley's and Holroyd's sections was blocked up. It had been blocked up for years. The rains flooded witness's hop garden for about) three and a half acres. Witness went to Mr Col' linge, the Town Clerk, and told him that the land was flooded by the drain which the Council had made, and by his advice wrote to the Conncil. Mr Collinge went to the garden and took levels. Witness wrote to the Council stating that if the water lay long on his land it would render it useless for this season, (Copy of letter put in.) The following week the Council sent five men to clean out the old drain, but still there were eight or nine inches of water left which could not get away because there was no outlet. The principal part of the water stopped about the borough boundary. Witness and his partner baled out the water for a tort, night. In August, 1892, there was another heavy rain. Between June and August the drain through Apperley's section had been properly rilled in by him. The result of the rain in August was that witness's hop garden was flooded about the same as before. Witness again went to Mr Collinge and to the Mayor, and told them what had happened. Mr Collingo said that the water came down Apperley's drain. Witness replied that there was enough water coming from Willow Park-road alone to flood the hop garden. Got no satisfaction from the Mayor and Mr Collinge. Witness then spoke to Councillors Foreman, Linney, Murdoch, and Hughes. Murdoch took witness to Lioney, and they wrote out a form convening a special meeting for him to post. A special meeting was called, but it fell through for want of a quorum. Another meeting was called, and was held. A report was then ordered to be obtained as to the best means of getting the water off plaintiff's land. The first thing done by the Council to relieve witness was about the 26th of August. This was about ten days after the second flood. Tbey took up a few of the pipes in the water-way between the gardens and the Havel ock bridge. Notwithstanding what was done to let the water off by the drain, it backed np, and there still remained nine or ten inches on the hop garden. That was in June. Between June and Angost the Council did nothing towards removing the obstruction in the drain. On the 26th of August they _,_. , partly cleared the drain, and after that the water ran towards the bridge, but that did cot clear the water from plaintiffs land. About a month ago tenders were called for deepeniog the drain, and the Conncil had bow made a drain which would probably carry off the water to the river. The Council also sent an engine to pump the water out into the Havelock-road drain. It went down the drain. The engine only pumped part of the water away. The engine was there a day and a half at the expense of the Borough Council, after which witness kept 1b on at bis own expense at 25s a day. Mr Collinge came to the drain, and witness asked him to take the drain drown to the Havelock river. He replied that it was the County Council's drain, and the Borough Council could not drain boyond their own boundary. Witness told him that the drain was of no use Id its - then state, and that be would lose a lot of hops through it. Witness considered that the water which flooded the hop garden came through the Council's drain. He estimated that he would have had two and a halt ton 3 of hops on three and a half acres. (Witness here went into details of the damage sustained.) The effect of the flood bad been to kill plaintiffs hop sets. Cross-examined : When Mr Tanner had the -gardens, the drain running through them was kept open. Never had any reason to think that the drain was necessary. It had not drawn any water since 1885. There was about 18 inches of water on plaintiff's lani. Witness was selling hops now at Is 2<i and Is 3d a lb. Witness and his partner blocked the drain in the hop gardens with hop roots. Libst did not ptmip witness's section dry eeveral times. Ke-examined : If witness had put a drain to stop the water out it would have flowed on to other people's land. During the past nine years the price of hops had not been up to Is once till now. Growers had to look to one good year out of live or six to make a profit. Thomas Wyatt deposed that he bonght land at JEUverslea iv 1891. The drain running through io was blocked up. Cross-examined : If the drain had been left it would not have drawn any water. It would have taken a lot of work to clear the drain, Charles Apperley stated that he considered the cause of the plaintiff's land being flooded in June last was the water from the Borough Council's drain. Ascribed the second flood to the same cause, The water was above the culvert. Cross-examined : Knew that the water had no fall, because it was standing still, A foot of water would not go through a nine-inch pipe. John Piper deposed that he was formerly plaintiff's partner. When the Borough Council drain in the Havelockroad was being deepened witness had asked Mr Collinge where the outlet was going to be, and he replied " Through the hop gardens." Witness told him that the drain through the gardens was stopped, and that the drain ought to be taken direct to the river, He replied that £100 had already been spent on the draiD, and no more could be spent. A bull goHnto the drain in the hup gardens and died and was buried there. Saw the plaintiffs hop garden after the flood. About three acres were covered with water. Thought that it) came from the Havelock-road. EatiH " mated the damage fluttered by masters at ■ £300 or more. ■ Cross-examined : Section 49 was a year B out of culture before ilie flood, but that H .would not materially affect the yield. ■ William Crayferd stated that he had Brrr-Leen in the hop-growing business all his ■ life. Estimated the plaintiff's damage at ■ from £300 to £350. (The witness was H severely cross-examined by Mr Loughnan HJ on the above estimate.) H There being many more witnesses to Hj be examined the Court rose at 5 o'clock, Hj and adjourned the case till Monday week H at 9 a.m.