DRAINAGE WORK SEQUEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15124, 15 October 1912, Page 5

DRAINAGE WORK SEQUEL.

CLAIM AGAINST REMUERA

BOARD.

ALLEGED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY.

The hearing of a claim for £100 compensation, brought by Edward Anderson against tho Rcmuera Road Board, was commenced before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., with Messrs'. H. W. Cooke and W. Garrett as co-assessors, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday.

The action arose as the result of certain drainage operations carried out on tho claimant's property at Sea-view Road by the Board. It was alloged that ornamental shrubs and shelter trees had been cut and destroyed during the work, thus detracting from the appearance of tho property, and allowing it to become exposed to the wind. Furthermore, it was alleged that the subsoil taken from the drain had not been replaced, but had been left lying on the top of tho surface soil. As a result, bare and unsightly patches had been caused.

Tho claimant was represented by Mr. H. P. Richmond, while Mr. R. McYeagh appeared for the Board.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Richmond slated that the Board had commenced drainage operations on Mr. Anderson's j property in December, 1910. At the time the drain was cut, the property was a very ! attractive section, admirably suited for a residential site. Its value was enhanced by reason of there being on the property a number of ornamental shrubs and shelter trees, which had been expressly planted by tho owner. In addition to screening tho section from tho wind, the trees tended to make the place private, a very important consideration in such an expensive area. They had also been planted in a certain order, a row of acacia trees, which grow extremely fast, sheltering a number of shrubs. As a result of tho drainage work, the place on which such attention had been bestowed had been ruthlessly knocked about. The Board's servants had not consulted Mr. Anderson in connection with tho putting through of the drain.

Evidence was given by Mr. Anderson, to the effect that ho had a row of acacia trees planted on the section to protect some less hardy shrubs from the wind. During the cutting of the drain, some eight or nine of the acacia trees had been cut down, while three of the shrubs had also been destroyed. Some of the clay taken from the drain had not been replaced, and remained on the surface in unsightly patches. If the Board had offered him £100, or even £200, for permission to cut the trees down, ho would not have accepted the offer. Mr. McVeagh: "Is there not a feud between you and the Board ?" Witness: "Not that I know of.'' Continuing his evidence, witness stated that the property was sold during his absence from New Zealand. He had previously wanted £1200 for the place, but, as a consequence of the trees being cut down, had left instructions for its sale at a minimum of £1000. This price was received for the property. The next witness was Joseph J. Walklate, general manager of the Auckland Tramways Company, who stated that tbe trees had been cut down'during the drainage work. John H. Jackson, a land agent, stated that he considered the property had depreciated to the extent of £100, as a result of the damage. Andrew Niccol, a nurseryman, was of 1 opinion that it would cost at least £100 to bring tho place to its former state as regards shelter and ornamentation. Ho estimated the value of ttio trees destroyed at £45. " ■'■'••'' ; *-;■■• The Defence. ... Mr. McVoagh, in the course of his opening remarks, touched upon tho fact of drainage work being one of public utility. In this instance, the work would tend to the betterment of tho property. Tho evidence he would call, ho submitted would show that tho damages claimed were flagrantly excessive. It had been said that nine to 12 trees had been removed, but he could bring ovidenco to show that nothing like that number had boon interfered with. It was stated by David Thomas Schmitt that ho was foreman of the Board's drainago works, and that lie had superintended the cutting of tho drain through tho claimant's property. During the progress of tho work, only three trees, two acacias and one shrub, which, had been in tho line* of the drain, had been cut clown. The spoil had been placed on the low side of tho trench, and a good surface had been left, Mr. Richmond : Did you ever, whilo you ! were engaged on tho work, mention anything about your instructions to anyone outside tho Remuera Road Board? Witness : No, I did not. Did you mention the matter to Mr. Cawkwcll. or to anv member of the Board? After a. good deal of hesitation, the witness admitted having had a ' conversation with Mr. Cawkwell, who owned a pieco of property adjoining the claimant's place Mr. Cawkwell had told him that tho drain was of paramount, importance, and though every care should he taken, trees in the road of tho drain should bo removed.

Mr. Kettle : From your demeanour in tho box, sir. I am of opinion, that you have had conversations with Mr. Cawkwell which you- do not wish to disclose. lb is my opinion that you are hanging back, and know perfectly well the nature of conversations about tho trees. Mr. Oawkwell's Evidence. Mr. C. A. Cawkwell. ex-chairman of tho Remuera Road Board, stated that he owned tho property adjoining that formerly owned by Mr. Anderson. Tn reply to anything in the nature of a suspicion regarding his instructions to the drainage, foreman, ho could positively affirm that? there had been no trees on the claimant's property to cause- him the least annoyance. As a matter of fact, they had afforded him shelter, and ho was going to plant a row inside his own boundary, Regarding the number of acacia, trees. Mr. Cawkwell staled that ho was positive that .-us many as nine or' ten trees had not been cut down an had been, stated. Ho was of opinion that prior to tho drainage work there had only been sonic four or five acacia trees. Board's .Engineer Not Consulted. Tho engineer to the Board, Mr. IT. Munro Wilson, stated that it was the foreman's duty to consult with property owners when damage might be done during the progress of -public works. In, answer to a question from Mr. Richmond, the witness stated that ho was aware that Mr. Anderson had put in a claim to tho Board for compensation. The Board, however, had not consulted him (tho witness) in the matter. Mr. Richmond : That's a, most extra,- ■ ; ordinary thing." Hubert Earlo Vaile, land and estate agent, stated that assuming that eight or ten acacias had boon cut down, ho would estimate tho damage at £15. If, prior, to the drainage work, the section had no proper means of drainage, then the work done by the Board would causo tho property to increase in value to an extent which would counterbalance the damage. Another land agent, Thomas Benjamin Clay, stated that ho assessed the damage at £30, £15 for damage to trees and shrubs and £15 for the loss of privacy. He was also of opinion that the drain put in by the Board would causo the property to appreciate in value. At this sta.io of the proceedings, the Court was adjourned until Fridav" afternoon, when the question of the drainage of tho section will be considered. Tho assessors will also visit tho section.