DRAINAGE IN THE CUST DISTRICT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXII, Issue 7350, 19 September 1884, Page 3

DRAINAGE IN THE CUST DISTRICT.

RATEPAYERS’ MEETING.

A largely attended meeting of ratepayers was hold at tho Oust Road Board Office on Wednesday, in order to consider whether any further steps should bo taken in the matter of tho storm-water at Bennetts. All the members of the Board were prosent, tho Chairman (Mr J. D. Dickenson) presiding. The Chairman explained that the object of the meeting was to consider whether it was desirable, under the circumstances, to take any further legal proceedings in the matter. He informed thp meeting that the legal adviser of tho Board was of opinion that the Board should enter upon tho land again to carry out their intentions, and leave tho other side to apply for an injunction to restrain them, and thus take the matter into the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt was not in favour of appealing against the late decision given in the Resident Magistrate's Court. The Chairman further informed tho meeting that he had written to Mr Higgins, the trustee in the Murphy Estate, requesting to know if he would agree to sell a narrow strip of land through the property for drainage purposes, hut had not received any answer. Mr Higgins, who was present, now explained that he had replied to tho letter in question, and stated that he could not make any private arrangement with the Board respecting the sale of land.

The Chairman then invited some ratepayer to propose a resolution to the meeting. There was a considerable pause, no person apparently%eing prepared with any business for the meeting. At length Mr Palmer Chapman asked : In the event of bringing on this case again do you mean to try it on the grounds that a natural water-course exists through the Murphy Estate ? The Chairman read the clause of the Public Works Act referring to watercourses, and further explained that in the event of the case being taken to a higher Court, ho had information that it would be submitted to a jury, who would visit the locality. They did not want to turn the water into any particular channel, but only to protect tho road from injury. Mr Chapman addressed the meeting, advising a certain course by which he believed the whole difficulty could be got over, and in the course of his remarks took occasion to refer to, and to read a portion of, the decision of Mr Ollivier when the case was before him at the Rangiora Court. Ho was interrupted, however, by Mr Tallot (a member of the Board), who exclaimed—- “ We are living under John Bull, we don’t want any ‘ Yankee Flag.’ ” Mr Ruddenklau had a very simple plan. He would fill up the water-table to the original level of tho land, thus forcing tho water into the paddocks on tho Murphy property, and would leave fords across the road to receive tho water as it returned. Tho Chairman : If tho water be ever got into the Murphy estate we can keep it there. We shall also remove some obstruction on the Eyreton road. Mr Chapman : We don’t want to go to law.

At this stage of the proceedings tho meeting got confused, and much desultory talking took place. Mr Higgins seized the opportunity of a lull to ask the Chairman it he could inform tho meeting of the cost of tho legal proceedings in tho matter. The Chairman replied that no account had yet been furnished of the costs in the last case, but in the former one the expenses wore .£4B.

Mr Chapman here proposed to level tho road, and put in flood-gates whore necessary.

Tho meeting again became noisy and confused.

Tho Chairman: A good many of you don’t understand my observations. Mr M'Laughlin (a member of tho Board) essayed to speak, but his remarks were lost in tho murmur of voices.

Mr Ruddenklau proposed tho following resolution—“’That tho whole matter bo loft to tho management of tho Board, and that legal proceedings bo avoided, if possible.” Mr Hunter was opposed to any further appeal to law. Tho case had already been decided against tho Board on two occasions, and he suggested that an amicable arrangement should bo tried with tho trustee of tho estate, with a view to a settlement. Mr Anderson moved, as an amendment —“That this meeting approves of any action tho Board may take in bringing tho matter before a higher Court.” A Ratepayer: They aro lawing all tho rates away. Mr Hunter: Mr Chairman, what is tho resolution before the mooting P Have my remarks been taken any notice of, (A. laugh.) The Chairman road Mr Rvuldonklau’s resolution. (Considerable noise.) Mr Gardiner: Was the Board ably represented by counsel at tho R.M. Court in the last case ?

The Chairman: Tho Board are quite satisfied with Mr Joynt’s conduct of tho case.

Mr Gardiner, who did not appear quite satisfied, referred to tho somewhat similar case of M'Dowol v. Pastor, at West Eyreton, where Mr Garrick, one of the counsel, visited tho ground. The Chairman hero entered into an explanation, when Mr Hunter said: Mr Chairman, you appear to bo in a dilemma. We all want to avoid going to law. (Further confusion.) Iho following amendment by Mr Hunter was now put to the meeting, and was declared lost—“ That no further logoi stons bo taken in the matter.” y

Mr Anderson’s amendment was then put and declared to be lost, whereupon Mr RuddeukJau's original motion was put and carried.

The meeting then broke up. *