WAIMAKARIRI-ASHLEY WATER-SUPPLY BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10309, 30 March 1894, Page 3

WAIMAKARIRI-ASHLEY WATER-SUPPLY BOARD.

APPEALS AGAINST THE LAND CLASSIFICATION. The hearing o£ the appeals against the land classification for rating purposes in connection with the Waimakariri-Aehley water-supply scheme was continued at the Rangiora Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr H. W- Bishop, S.M. The appeal before tho court waa that of Mr Marmaduke Dixon. Mr Helmore appeared for the appellant, and Mr Cowlishaw for the Water-supply Board. In continuation of appellant’s case, Mr Helmore called M. J. Dixon, son of Marmaduke Dixon, who stated that he was acquainted with every inch of his father’s laud. The Stipendiary Magistrate ruled that evidence as to the quality of the land was nob admissible. He could nob go beyond the question as to whether the land would be benefited by the water to be provided by the Board’s scheme or not. Mr Helmore considered that the two questions ware connected to a considerable extent. It was difficult to; say whether the land would be benefited unless its quality ware taken into consideration. The Magistrate replied that Mr Helmore certainly had evidence for the contention, but he waa of opinion, after a careful study of the Act, that he waa sitting simply to decide whether the land was to receive any direct benefit from tho water; and not to consider the quality of the land. The witness corroborated the evidence given by his father at a previous sitting of the court. It was absurd to say that the small stream cf water such as the Board intended to supply, passing through tha poor scrub land of the Midland Railway block, could benefit it. Thera were 34.000 acres that would not be benefited. Richard Orme Dixon, son of appellant, William Bailey and Frederick Moore corroborated the evidence of the appellant. This was all the evidence in support of the appeal. Mr Cowlishaw submitted that it was clear from evidence that no part of the appellant’s land came within the meaning of Sections 31 and S2 of the Act. The land was capable of being served and benefited by water-races, and Mr Dixon’s own evidence showed that he had purchased it expressly for that purpose. With reference to the point that appellant had a private supply, it was shown in evidence that only a small part of Mr Dixon’s property was euppliel and that he had no title to the water, it being taken illegally from the river across a road, and therefore subject to ba stopped at any time by injuckion, which the Board or any ratepayer could apply for, Mr Dixon could, therefore, claim no exemption under this bead. He (Mr Cowlishaw) w ould ask if there waa any reason why he should go into evidence to meet the case put forward by appellant. The Stipendiary Magistrate said it appeared to him that the position taken up by bath parties did not come within the meaning of Section 31 of the Act. He decided to take evidence in support of the classification. Mr Cowlishaw called Edward Dobson, C.E., who gave evidence that he was one of the classifiers appointed by tha Board to classify tha land of the district under the Act. Was consulting engineer to the Board, and was well acquainted with the scheme. The water would be supplied to every acre of Mr Dixon’s land, and would benefit it if growing grass for .sheep -was. a benefit. Examined the appellant’s two water-races on March 9 and 16. There were no gates to regulate the intake, no weirs or any provision for taking away surplus water, and tha races were a menace to the safety of tho district. If the ratepayers of East Eyreton were aware of tho danger they were in from the races they would rise as & man and compel Mr Dixon to put a stop to them. Had made calculations of the Board’s contemplated- supply, and: found it to bo 14.000 cubic feet per minute, equal to a rainfall of thirty inches per year over one hundred square mile?. The proposed race would give this supply, but it might be increased with auxiliary races. The valuable silt waa held, in solution by water, and was carried for many miles. To the Stipendiary Magistrate: In making the classification they interpreted tha clause “Land receiving immediate and direct benefit ” to mean land capable of taking tha water; the clause “Land receiving leas direct benefit” to mean land not receiving water, but enhanced in value by the water being on surrounding lands, and being open to the poseibility or power of being supplied with water at any time; and the clause “ Land indirectly benefited ” to mean land that by reason of its configuration waa not capable of being supplied, and yet waa enhanced in value by the scheme. The Act was not clear, and they had to do the best they could in its interpretation.

George Johnston Webster, engineer to tbe Board, stated that he acted as one of the classifiers of land. He gave details of the Board’s scheme, and of that of Mr Dixon. There was nothing to protect Mr Dixon’s intake from the river, and at any time the river might ba run into East Eyreton. Tha Waimakariri carried a considerable quantity of silt, but it was not desirable that heavy sand should enter tbe races-. Precautions against this had to ba taken. The Board’s scheme was ample for the district, and could not fail to give immediate and direct benefit to the land.

John Dobson, Chairman cf the "WaterSupply Board, gave evidence. Robert M. Wright said that, in tha capacity of clerk to the West Eyreton Road Board, he forwarded Mr Dixon a letter on Nov. 16, 1892, ordering him to cease taking water across tha road. He also sent a similar letter from the Eyreton Road Beard on August 7, 1893. The Eyreton Eoad Board notified the West Eyreton Board that it would be held responsible for any damage resulting from Mr Dixon taking water across the roads. To Mr Helmore: No further action waa taken. At tha annual meeting of the West Eyreton ratepayers, a motion was carried that Mr Dixon should not be interfered with in respect to taking the races over the road bounding hia own property. William Charlesworfch also, gave evidence, and the appellant replied to some of that led. Mr Cowlishaw addressed the Bench at some length, contending that the point to be decided was not the question of benefit derived by Mr Dixon, but whether immediate and direct benefit waa to accrue from the water to be provided by the Board. He also submitted that tbe classification had to he carried out before work could ba proceeded with. Mr Helmore replied that it was perfectly clear'that the classification should ho made when tho benefit was in existence. Unless the benefit existed there was nothing tangible to go upon. To carry out the work the Board, under Section 30, could raise a loan and secure it to the lender by a uniform rate. With reference to the interpretation of the words “ Land receiving less direct benefit,” beheld them to mean laud receiving a less amount cf immediate and direct benefit than land placed in the first class. To decide the ques’ion of tho less direct benefit it would be necessary and right to take into consideration tho quality of the land and its capability of being improved by tha water. The third class, or la-sd receiving indirect benefit, might be taken to ‘mean Mad through which the water could ba run to afford a drinking supply for sheep; and the fourth class land having at the present time sufficient.

water or not fit to take water. Ho submitted that appellant’s thick scrub land, and the land supplied by the water-races should be placed in the fourth class, and the thin scrub land should ba included in the third class. The Stipendiary Magistrate asked Mr Cowlishaw*whether an immediate decision was desired. Mr Cowllehaw replied that until the classification was settled the Board could not complete the negotiations for the loan, and delay might result in the money not being available. The Stipendiary Magistrate said that, after a careful study of the Act, ho was inclined to hold that the present proceedings were premature. There was just one part of the evidence which had been given that day which might cause him to modify his opinion, arid he should like time to consider the points it suggested. There waa a most minute and delicate distinction between the classes of land, and it was next to impossible to come to a decision unless absolute details were provided ; details to the extent of the construction of the races. As there was no appeal from his decision it behoved him to bo most careful. He’ would therefore reserve his decision until next Tuesday morning. The appeal of John O’Halloran was then taken. Mr Helmore appeared for appellant, and Mr Cowlishaw for the Board. Objection to tho classification of 2900 acres was made on the ground of the land being well provided with water. The Court exempted two sections, and allowed one to remain as classified at present; defence in reference to the fourth being abandoned by the Board, the decision being subject to the reservation in connection with Mr Dixon’s case. The exemptions amounted to 1800 acres. The Court at 5 p.m. adjourned until noon on Tuesday.