A KAIAPOI CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9994, 24 March 1893, Page 3

A KAIAPOI CASE.

THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. At the Christchurch Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, ilc H. A. Wardell, R.M., gave judgment in the ease of Joseph Stanton v. The TTniapoi Borough Council, claim £45 for damages.; The case was heard af Kaiapoi on Feb. €. and additional evidence was taken at Christchurch on Maroh 16,. when judgment was reserved: Mr Fisher appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Martin for defendant.: The following ia the judgment“ That the eighteen-inch pipe culvert at the head of Dudley’s drain on the Ohoka road ia too small to give a sufficiently rapid discharge to the water which finds its way to ita mouth, 1 am satisfied by the evidence before me. lam also satisfied that by the consequent damming back of the water the plaintiff has suffered damage. This eighteen-inch culvert, which was eubstD tinted for one Bfb z 2ft, was con* structed by the Eyreton Road Board, with the consent of the defendant Borough, at a time when each of these bodies held control over one half of the road, and thin in my opinion somewhat weakens the effect of the judgment in Hall v. Taieri County Council, cited by Mr Martin, as governing this case; but however that may be, it is quite clear that the defendant Borough is liable for any damage, the result of any act by which it has brought an additional body of water to Che mouth of the culvert, or which has had the effect of preventing the full flow of water through it, and so. caused an overflow on to, or prevented the escape of water from the land of the plaintiff. 1 find that by the construction of the ditch at the corner of the Ohoka and North road the defendant Borough brought additional water into the Ohoka ditch, and ; by enlarging the previously existing culverts in that ditch produced a larger and more rapid flow of water towards the eighteen-inch pipe culvert (one third the capacity of the enlarged ditch culvert) which forms the outlet into Dudley’s drain. Not only did the Borough increase the flow of water to the outlet! culvert, but by inserting one six-inoh and ‘ one four-inch pipe discharging- into it water from the drain on tho lower side of the road, very considerably reduced the' capacity of tho culvert as originally constructed to carry the Ohoka ditch water. 1 find that as a result the water has bees', held back and accumulated with damage to the plaintiff, for which I hold the defendant Borough liable on the ground of negligence. As to- the amount of that damage very conflicting opinions have been given in evidence, and these opinions' are highly speculative. Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for £ls and costs.”