APPEAL AGAINST ORDER TO DISMANTLE BRIDGE

Manawatu Times, Issue 6848, 1 March 1929, Page 8

APPEAL AGAINST ORDER TO DISMANTLE BRIDGE

Question of Obstruction

MOUTOA DRAINAGE BOARD AND RATEPAYERS AT LA AY

In the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., listened to an appeal by Erederick S. Easton of Moutoa, against tho action of the Moutoa Drainage board in ordering him to remove a concrete bridge which he had erected across tho board’s main drain at its outlet into tho Manawatu river.

Messrs J. Ohrystal (chairman) and B. G. Gower attended on behalf of the board, -which was counselled by Sir. B. Bergin, of Foxton. Mr. J. P. Innes appeared for appellant. In outlining the grounds of the appeal, counsel stated that the board had ordered Easton to removo his bridge, on,the grounds that it impeded the flow of water in tho drain but his client contended that tho bridge did not do so. Tho board’s overseer had seen the bridge while in the course of erection yet the board had allowed the structure to remain for 12 months before lodging a complaint . Tho bridge had been substantially built of concrete. His Worship had had an opportunity of inspecting the bridge in order to be conversant with the position. The drain was in a very bad state and was feet deep in rubbish—there had been no attempt to clean it for some time. The land on either side of the bridge was owned by Mr Easton, who was one of the largest ratepayers in the board’s district.

Mr Innes then called his first witness.

Bridge Not an Obstruction.

Robert Edwards, architect and engineer of Palmerston North, in the box, stated that he knew the Moutoa district well. Ho had inspected the main drain and Mr Easton’s bridge on February 9. Ho kuew of the Moutoa drainage board’s complaint that appellant’s bridge prevented the free flow of water in the channel but, as an expert, he was of the opinion that the bridge did not obstruct the free passage of the water. He had inspected the piles and was of the opinion that, although they appeared to impede the flow, they did so very slightly. The drain was in a very bad state and apparently had not been cleaned for some time.

As a matter of fact tho majority of streams did very little work above half their depth and he was of the opinion that tho greater part of the work in this drain was done within a foot of tho bottom. The drain itself had a very gradual fall which he would estimate at not more than 44 inches per mile. The flow was in consequence was very sluggish and there was very little velocity at the bridge. In witness’s considered opinion, the erection of the bridge had not impeded the flow of water at all.

In reply to Mt Bergin, witness stated that the drain was 13ft 3in wide. He admitted that the fact of a stream having a sluggish flow made it more easily impeded. He had not seen debris being carried by the water of the main drain. Drain Not Cleaned. William Henry Kirk Gilmour, civil engineer, of Palmerston North stated that he had had a great deal of experience of drainage work in the Makerua district, which was very similar to the Moutoa country. On February 9, incompany with the previous witness, Mr Edwards, he had inspected Mr Easton’s bridge. As a result it was his considered opinion that tho piers of thus structure in no way obstructed the flow of water in tho drain. The drain had not appeared to have been cleaned out for some time; indeed, he had been informed that it had not been cleaned to its full cross section for four years. In witness’s opinion it was essential that as the main drainage outlet, this drain should be cleaned once a year. Witness agreed with Mr Edwards that the bridge did not obstruct the flow of; water. .

This closed appellant’s case. j The Magistrate asked whether Mr. j Easton had any objection to the bridge being raised a foot in height. Mr Innes intimated that his client had no objection to this, provided that it was done in a proper manner. | The Magistrate asked why the board: had waited 12 months before lodging a 1 complaint against the construction of: the bridge. They must have known* what form it was to take. j

Mr Bergin said that the board had deferred action until it had seen what the effect would be on the flow of the stream. The Magistrate: You appear to have sat on your rights too long. After further argument, the Magistrate stated that it appeared plain that the level of the decking of the bridge was below that of the banks on either side. Could not the decking bo

raised a foot! The bridge did not appear to have narrowed the drain a great deal, or to offer any material obstruction to the flow of water. Mr Bergin then prtoceeded to outline his case and call his evidence. Drain Cleaned Every Year. John Ohrystal, farmer of Foxton, stated that ho was chairman of the Moutoa drainage board. The main drain was most important to the board, as being the chief outlet for tho whole drainage system. The first intimation the board had received of tho nature of the construction of Mr Easton’s bridge had been contained in a report from tho foreman, received in April, 1928. Witness had inspected the bridge and had then found it to be completed. He had decided not to act arbitrarily in the matter but had again inspected in July, when he had found the drain running bank high. There had been from two to three chains of debris backed up against the decking of the bridge. From Witness’ observation, the whole structure of the bridge was below the level of the banks. The board required

full waterway for the discharge of water between the banks. The capacity of the drain was 90 cubic feet when it was cleaned, as it was every year. It was absolutely incorrect that the drain had not been cleaned for four years. The board had recently spent £SOO in deepening the drain in addition to the cost of the annual cleaning. Some time ago, Mr Easton had brought an action against the board for failing to clean drains and as a result, the board had been completely exonerated. The silt that had been observed had all been deposited about three months ago at the time of a flood. The board had not been notified of Mr Easton’s intention to erect a bridge, otherwise the whole question could have been discussed and the troublo obviated. It was witness’s opinion that the con-

struction of this bridge in the outlet was detrimentally effecting the whole eastern drainage system of the board. In reply to Mr Innes, witness admitted that his property was only 30 chains from Mr Easton’s boundary but reiterated his contention that he had not learned of the construction of the bridgo until it had been nearly completed. He admitted that there was a little ill-feeling between Mr Easton and himself, although he was quite

ready to heal any disagreement. For this reason, he had not been anxious to cause trouble by going on appellant’s property to inspect the bridge. He had himself removed a bridge on his own property because it was considered that its construction obstructed the flow of the drain. The main drain was cleaned every year .work being commenced as a rule l in* March and completed in May.

j Bridge Obstructing Water. ! • B. Gr. Grower, in evidence, stated that he was the original chairman of the Moutoa Drainage board and had been connected with the district for 50 years. He had inspected the bridge in November and had found the water well up in the drain but not over the 'decking. The bridge, in witness’s opinion, reduced the carrying capacity of the drain 50 per cent. I The Magistrate: That canno-t be accurate. You mean that the bridge reduced the section of the drain 50 per cent.

To Mr Innes, witness stated that he did not consider it a fair question to ask who had first proposed that proceedings should bo taken against appellant. Under further questioning, witness stated that he had moved the motion himself. Tiic Magistrate stated that he would like some further evidence as to the levels of the- bridge and the drain. Mr Innes concurred and the case was adjourned for a fortnight to enable this addition!-: information to be obtain^