HEATHCOTE SEWAGE. SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17099, 23 February 1916, Page 4

HEATHCOTE SEWAGE.

SUPREME COURT.

COUNTY COUNCIL'S POWERS EXTENDED. NEW REGULATIONS. A "Gazette" notice states that " whereas it is expedient to confer on the Hcathcoto County Council certain of such powers' of a borough council .

. . . His Excellency tho Governor of the Dominion of New Zealand, in pursuance and exercise of the power and authority vested in him in that behalf by the Counties Amendment Act, 1915, and acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said Dominion, doth hereby conier upon the said County Council all the powers exercisable by a duly constituted borough council under Parts XXIII. and XXXIX. of and the Tenth Schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1010, sections twenty-eight and thirty-nine of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1913, and section seven of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1915." Yesterday a "Lyttelton Times" reporter obtained the following information concerning the Order-in-Council:-The position is that the County has two ridings having a sewage watercarrying system. Under the powers of the Counties Act the power of county councils is very limited. The Order-in-Council will give the Heathcotc County Council authority to deal with sewage matters. For example :If the council desired to lay n main sewer through private property it would, under the Counties Act, have to procure an easement, and tho permission of mortgagees, perhaps numbering six or more- This entailed much delay and also expense. The Cashmere sewage system had been dealt with before the Order was made. Under the new system there would be a saving of about £2OO in that section. The Order also gave the council power to assist owners of property to make connection with the sewage system.

An instance was quoted under the old regulations, whereby it had taken the Heathcote Council six months to arrange with ono particular property at Cashmere. It concerned a main sewer connection, and the work was held up completely by the delaying tactics of an owner which were permitted under the Counties Act. A council had no redress. It could not hurry mattersafid was entirely in the hands of property owners. Under the Order now in force power was given to the Heathcote Council to give notice to owners of its intention to carry out the work. Owners could then approach the council, and matters concerning compensation for damage (if any) in taking tho system through private property could be readily and expeditiously adjusted. Sewage construction would not be, held up, and a very necessary work in regard to public'health would be. carried out without blockage by individuals. The Heathcotc County Council is differently situated to most county councils of" the Dominion. It operates in a suburban area adjoining a big city, and has necessarily to keep up with sanitary and sewage matters as they are in the citv area, otherwise tho health of all is likely to he effected. Other county councils operate in largo rural areas, where the conditions differ considerably from those pertaining in the case of the Heathooto Council In the Heathcotc area are a number of villages "which are federated and which have arranged for sewage. In the Hcathcoto Valley and in Cashmere there were very many houses and it is imperative to have an up-to-date sewage system. Under the regulations permitted by the Order in Council the work of the Heathcote County Council in this matter would be expedited and no owner hereafter would be able to block progress. The Heathcote Council has been enabled to have the Order-in-Council made by the good offices of tho Hon. G. W. Russell, and his work is much appreciated by the members of the council. »*«

CIVIL CASES. The hearing of the list of civil case:, was resumed at the Supreme Court yesterday morning before his Honor Mr Justice Donniston. FARMER'S WILL DISPUTED. In the action Mary Lydia Dixon Marshall v. Public Trustee ntfd Alexander Duxhury, an application was made to recall the probate granted of the will of the late William Whitfield; on July 20, 1914, to the Public Trustee. The will was dated February 24, 1910. Mr Raymond. K.C.with him Mr Williams, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Beswiek appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr E.-T. Harper for Alexander Duxbury. Mr Raymond, outlining the case tor the plaintiff, said that on August 10. 189° when aged nine years, she was adopted by the wife of the testator, under un order by a magistrate, the statutory effect of the order making her the adopted child of both Mrs Whitfield and her husband, who were childless. Plaintiff from that time lived with tho Whitfields and worked for them on their farm assiduously. On November 15, 1901. by a will prepared in Whitfield's handwriting, he left twenty-seven acres of land to the plaintiff 'That will was superseded by one dated June 21,1902 (which the plaintift alleged was the last valid will of the testator), and the gift to the plaintiff of the. twenty-seven acres was ropeatoil. provision being made for the wife, and tho residue going to a nephew in \merica Legacies were let t to the Duxburvs. who were nephew ana' niece to Mrs "Whitfield.. In 1903. with tho approval of her adopted parents, plaintiff became engaged to Frederick Charles Marshall, who then worked on the farm. They were married in September 390?, from the testator s house. In August. 1908, Marshall, at the instance of the testator, took a lease of 102 acres belonging to the latter who built n house for the young couple. On September 28, shortly after the marriage, the house built, by the testator for the voung couple was destroyed by fire, and all their effects were destroyed Whitfield worried very much about the fire and from that date his health failed. He came to Chnstehuroh and gave instructions to the Public Trust Office as to a new will. In the new v ; " which plaintiff was trying to set aside, the gift to her was reduced from twentv-sevoii acres absolutely, to „ life interest in seventeen acres. A few weeks before this new will was executed the Akarca constable warned the Marshalls that Whitfield's delusions, especially against Mrs Marshall were increasing. 'I wo days alter he signed the will Whitfield took to Ins bed suffering from mama. On June 2», 1914. he died at the -Marshalls resideFreclrick Charles Marshall, farmer, Robinson's Bay. husband of the plaintiff Slave evidence supporting counsel s statement and added that when discussing the lease and improvements to the property, Whitfield said: "It has come Fo this, that I might as well tell you. I might.live two years, or two days, but whenever I go. Lydia will have this property." The fire that destroyed witness's bouse and contents occurred .September. Whitfield never seemed the same after theJJre, and worried more over witness* osses than his own. Whitfield insisted upon rebuilding the house. fitness and his Vie saw him daily; his fusions increased as time went on During 1910 he could not look after himself, and ill April, 1911, after his wile s death, an order was made givmg charge ot his estate to the Pubic Irustee. Witness added that the twenty-seven acres were worth £4o per acre He bad paid the nil rent of 22s rer acre He and his wife understood hat tlev were to get 102 acres on Whitfield's death. Witness was always on very friendly terms with Whitfield until he became violent. Thomas D. Kendall local deputy of the Public Trustee, Chnstehuroh, said that he succeeded the late Mr bmythe I Vecember 1, 1914, Since June, 1911, the office had charge of the testator's papers. The office.records showed that the will dated June 21, 190" was returned to the testator on March 10 1910. with advice to destroy it, another later will having been executed The document (produced) was an office copy of the earlier will. Mary Lvdia Marshall, the plaintiff.. «aye evidence corroborating her counsel's opening statement. Witness said that Whitfield went to a nursinn- home in Christchmvi. hi 1910. When ho returned- a keeper was engaged-' for- two months to look after him '\fter that witness and her husband looked after : him Hedied in June. 1911. -When the will was read over, after the funeral, witness was very surprised Later she <wv Mr Smytbe, the Public trustee, nt Christchurcii, who said that it was

rather a disgraceful.-affair, and ho would do what he could for her. To Mr Beswick: Mr Symtho advised her to try and got more. She hud expected to* get the 102 acres, from what Whitfield had told her. To Mr Harper: She mentioned- The question of insanity at her first interview'with Mr Symthc, who gave her to understand that the will might be upset.

At 5.10 p.m. (he Court adjourned to 10 a.m. on" the following day.

[Tk& Press Association.] AUCKLAND, February 22. In the Supreme Court, "William Henry Copestake, for perjury, was sentenced to two years' reformative treatment. .: « Clolthel Febcabond, an unnaturalised German, far indecent assault, on' a married woman at Teneatua, Bay of Plenty, was sentenced to six'month*' hard labour. Vernon Alan Burnside, for breaking and entering and theft, was sentenced to three years' reformative treatment.