OHAKEA FARMERS IN LEGAL BATTLE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6911, 17 May 1929, Page 8

OHAKEA FARMERS IN LEGAL BATTLE

Decision Reserved DLSuOiSAI. OF FLOOD WATER SI’EJECT OF ACTION At the Supreme Court yesterday Mr Justice Ostler heard legal argument in a case, the evidence in wliicn w r as tendered him in June and December, 1927. The plaintiff in the action was Frank Oliver Bailey, farmer, of Ohakea, counselled by Mr H. R. Cooper, and the defendants Albert Charles Vile, of Ohakea, farmer, and his wife, Sarah Vile, foi whom Air J. Graham appeared. Tho parties, whoso farm properties adjoin, came to court in an endeavour to settle a dispute arising out of al leged interference with the natural flow of flood waters from one property on to the other. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff is the owner of a farm at Ohakea adjoining farm lands owned by the defendant and his wife, the boundary between the properties being a bank and gorse hedge erected over 40 years ago. On the defendants’ side of tho hedge is a ditch which runs the length of tho boundary and beyond it. In May, 1926, it was alleged, the defendants connected up a number of depressions on their property by drains, with the result that large volumes of water flooded into the ditch along the boundary. The defendants, it was alleged, by enlarging and deepening the ditch caused a large volume of water to accumulate, which they got rid of by cutting a hole in the bank and digging a large drain on the plaintiff’s land, with the result that the water flowed over his property. The plaintiff immediately protested and repaired the damaged bank, notwithstanding which the defendants again cut through the bank and have at divers times since done the same. As a result of the defendants’ actions the x’laintiff’s farm had on various occasions been flooded, causing great damage to his pasture, crops and stock j as follows: Loss of crops of turnips £4O, grass seed destroyed £35, top-dress-ing lost £lO, loss on 22 acres reserved for grass seed £IOO, depreciation in value of hoggets £25, cost of repairing drains £l3, general damages £IOO, a total of £323. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from further interfering with the bank and discharging water on to his land, and that lie be awarded the amount of damages set out. The defence filed was a general denial of the allegation of active interference, and further that the water was only following its natural course, and that the plaintiff by blocking the water in this course caused flooding of defendants’ land. Before counsel argued the law relating to the action, James Lobb, who had previously given evidence, was recalled and gave evidence as to the drainage arrangements and flow of storm water 36 years ago. His Honour reserved his decision.