DAMAGES AWARDED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXI, Issue 199, 24 July 1941, Page 8

DAMAGES AWARDED

SALEYARDS CASE. INJUNCTION ALSO GRANTED. Damages amounting to £325 and an injunction, restraining defendants from polluting the Makino Stream were awarded Arthur John Read, farmer, of Awahuri Road, Feilding, by the Chier Justice (Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) in the Supreme Court yesterday at I the conclusion of the case in which plaintiff sought £874 as damages, as well as the injunction, from the Manawatu and West Coast Auctioneers j Association, the allegation being made, that the stream was polluted by sewage i from the Feilding saleyards. Dr. O. C., Mazengarb (Wellington) and Mr J. C-l Hill (Feilding) appeared for plaintiff and Messrs H. It. Cooper and D. C. Cullinanc (Feilding) for- the defendant companies. Mr J. Graham watched proceedings on behalf of the lending Borough Council. D. K. McGill gave evidence that lie had been employed by the Borough Council for 18 years on street cleaning. All the drainage water from the streets went into the Makino Stream. From motor garages there was, usually two or three times a week, a mass of oil emptied from the sumps of the garages into the water channels which drained into the stream. This, to his knowledge, had been going on for 14 years. There were three garages. On a busy day, 400 or 500 motor-cars were parked in the streets ami from approximately seven out of every 10 of these oil dripped and ran into the gutters. The traffic was about four times greater on a Friday than on any other day. There were also two fish shops, and the washing-down from these shops went into the gutters. On Fridays 12 sheep lorries were parked in Macarthur Street for about half an hour while the men had their lunch. After the delivery of the sheep the lorries were taken back to Macarthur Street, where they were washed out. W. H. Duncan, retired farmer, said he had been a member of fhe I'ending Bowling Club for about 15 years and had been green-supervisor for six years until about 18 months ago. An open drain ran through the property and the main trouble from it was caused by the storm-water from the streets. The piping under the pavement was too small and this caused flooding, with resultant damage to the gardens and the greens themselves, tins and rubbish being deposited on them. 1 his had occurred three times since October after heavy rain. Some years ago some of the lady members of the club had complained of the smell from the drain, but he never could detect it. Ao animal manure of any nature hud been deposited on the greens as the result of the flooding. He had noticed oil running in the drains and just for curiosity had kept a tally. Un only four days in three weeks was there no oil showing. There was usually a heavy coating of oil on the drain. I Ids oil he hao seen in the Makino Stream near a bridge below Awahuri Itoad. It had left a heavy black film. In reply to Dr. Mazengarb, witness said the pipes which caused the flooding were not the same as those which carried the water from the saleyards. AV. C. Lee, labourer, of Awahuri Road, said he occupied a small property adjacent to and up-stream from ■ plaintiff’s farm. He had noticed that the Makino Stream was dirtv on Saturday mornings, and he had seen oil in the backwashes. There had been no outstanding variation in the butterfat production from his herd. In addition to the oil, he had seen dead pigs, cats, and, after a flood, sheep in the stream. Replying to Dr. Mazengarb, witness said lie had not seen the dead animals in the stream during the summer. ! J. Hill-Motion, veterinary surgeon, gave evidence that in 1934 a special inquiry was undertaken by the Institute of Animal Pathology of the Royal Veterinary College in London into the effect of sewage drainage on stock. The inquiry showed that there was no danger, either chemical or bacterial, when sewage effluent or crude sewage was given to the experimental animals. One animal consumed voluntarily 1 over 5000 gallons of sewage effluent over a period of 21 months without any effect where its health or production were concerned. In New Zealand he had visited hundreds of milking sheds and had found that the rule, 1 rather than the exception, was that farmyard manure was allowed to drain into the nearest paddock or stream. In no case had be found that the blame for sickness could be placed on the drainage from the cowsheds. In recent years the Department of j Agriculture had been recommending the use of liquid manure on the dairy farms in New Zealand. So far as the present case was concerned, he referred to articles in Journals of Agriculture, dated August, 1939, and July, 1941, and these were read. Witness stated he had found nothing dangerous in liquid manure for animals. He had visited the yards at Feilding and inspected the drain and the Makino. Stream. He had seen the sumps emptied and also noticed a definite discoloration where the sump entered the . drain. The drain was running slowly. He requested samples to be taken at various points on Friday and prepared them for the Court. The samples had not been analysed because there was no standard of drinking water for dairy stock, except the fact that it must not contain organisms causing disease or chemical poisons or substances likely to cause poisoning. It was his definite opinion that there was nothing in the water from the saleyards to prevent the cows from drinking it, and it was his experience that cows would drink water contaminated by animal manure. He had seen cows under test, and even stud bulls, drinking it. In reply to Dr. Mazengarb, witness said that he could only say the water supply was unsatisfactory if production per cow dropped from 3061 b to 1951 b, but rose again when the water supply was changed, to 2551 b. That must be the assumption provided other conditions remained normal, but it did not moan that manure had made the 1 water unsatisfactory. This concluded the evidence. HIS HONOUR’S DECISION. Mr Cooper said that on the figures ■ quoted for eight years the herd pro- ‘ ; duced an average of 76341 b of butter--1 i fat. For the last six years the average . was 75061 b. The figures, he claimed, j showed that a loss of 7081 b was shown i over the six years, amounting to £4l j ! 8s 4d, at the average price. He submitf; ted that even if the water had been - polluted by the matter from the sale-, yards the damage was very small; there was a great deal of pthcr pollution. Dr. Mazengarb. referring to the ini junction, requested that His Honour 3; should not issue the writ for some time s —sufficient to allow for the work of drainage to be completed. He then reviewed the average production of the 0 herd over a number of years. r His Honour stated that an injuncy tion must be wanted to restrain dey fendants from polluting the stream, 1 but it would not be issued at once. ° Plaintiff had installed an artesian Z supplv and so be would not suffer '* much* further damage bv the inju.nc--3 tion lying in the Court for six months. That period should give the associa- [, j tion ample, time to abate the nuisance, | but should six months prove too short a period leave would be granted them

to apply for an extension of time, but they would have to show good cause. His PT.onotU' added that be had no doubt a claim had been made out for damages, although the amount would be far below tho sum claimed. He was satisfied, on the evidence, tliat the reduction in butterfat production was due in some measure to the pollution of the stream by defendants. It was difficult to make an assessment of plaintiff’s loss: there were -so many causes. He proposed to allow one lump sum of £325 to cover all the damages, and the injunction would be granted, subject to the conditions previously mentioned. The terms of the injunction would be settled bv the Court if counsel were unable to agroe. Plaintiff would have costs according to scale as on the basis .of a claim for £6OO. -with witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be srttied bv the Registrar*