SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13108, 23 April 1903, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, April 22. (Before his Honor Mr Justace Denniston.) APPEAL FROM AN AFFILIATION ORDER. Thomas Gamble, of Southbridge, {aimer, appealed from an order made by Mr H. W. bishop, S.M., at Leeston on Nov. 7, 1902, adjudging him to be the putative, father of m -illegitimate child and directing him to pay 7s 6d weekly for the maintenance of the child, £6 6s medical expensesl sad £1 Is solicitor's fee. Mr Unwell appeared for. tfc© appellant, and Mr Harper for the respondent. The principal grounds of appeal were that there had been nc evidence tendered before the; Stipendiary Magistrate in sufficient corroboration of the girl's statements. On the application of Mr Harper, the hearing was adjourned sine, die, to enable medical evidence to be brought regarding the period of gestation. ' A RESERVED JUDGMENT.

His Honor gave judgment, in the case of Halpin, v. Archer. In this case it was alleged that the defendant for a long time wrc-r. dully maintained a, dam or obstruction on his land, by means of which the water of a stream running through the land of the plaintiff and the defendeant was dammed back on the plaintiff's land, flooding it continually. The plaintiff claimed £IOO damages, a mandatory injunction to remove the dam and other relief if necessary. His Honor said that the defendant had enjoyed the rights of the dam. for twenty year's, and the enjoyment, must be continuous and as of. right; It was alleged that | the enjoyment had been for some time, on suiTerano\ but there was no direct challenge of •,!:.- right of defendant to maintain the°dam rioted twenty years before the first cor.-.pbint. In order to enable the pxintiff to obtain relief; it was necessary to show tint ihe effect of what had been done was to raise the level of the creek where it ran through his land. It, would be difficult to say what was the former level of the creek. What evidence -there was of the original state of things was in favour of j the defendant. The demand was that the ' stream should be restored to its natural I lerel. He had no data from which to arrive, at a conclusion as to what the natural level should be. Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs. Mr Izard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Russell, with him Mr Papprill, for the defendant.