SHINGLE FROM BEACH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18664, 21 March 1924, Page 7

SHINGLE FROM BEACH.

OWNER B€EKS INJUNCTION,

PONUI ISLAND DISPUTE./

the: QUESTION OF DAMAGE,

Important questions in regard to the taking of shingle from certain beaches in the Gulf were raised in an action before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme); Court yesterday. H. E. Chambeilin (Mr. R. McVeagh and Mr. Northcroft) sought a permanent injunction against John Thomas Hooks, master of the scow Waiti, and A. W. Bryant, his employer, restraining them from taking sand and shingle from certain beaches on Ponui or Chamberlin Island, owned by plaintiff. Mr. Paterson appeared for the defendants and Mr. Meredith for the Attorney-General. Mr. McVeagh, in opening, said that last August Hooks went to Injunction Bay, or Ernie Chamberlin's Bay, on Ponui Island, having obtained a permit from the Marine Department, which prohibited the removal of sand or shingle from below highwater mark without the consent of the Minister for Marine. Hooks loaded sand and shinglo from below high-water mark, working up to a post in the beach, which was about five feet from ordinary highwater mark. Counsel submitted that it

was obvious that in that way Hooks

brought down, either then or during a, later tide, material which was situated above ordinary high-water mark, and which, plaintiff claimed, formed part of ms freehold .'*.■•

Evidence for Plaintiff. Henry Ernest Ohamberlin, a .son of plaintiff, said he had lived on the isiand 39 years. The greater portion of the shingle was, in .his opinion, above hignwater mark. Some 11 or 12 years ago shingle was taken. Prior to that the shingle bank continued further out, like a wall. That had mostly disappeared,but there was still a small bank. H*"* s excavations went from nothing to about a foot deep. After the removal of shingle by Hooks there would be a general levelling process, and the shingle must come down under the action of the water and waves.

waves. . _ . 'i Cross-examined by. Mr. Paterson, witness said that Hooks' method of working was a very careful one. _ .-■''. ..•. .{ Ashley Hunter, a civil engineer, said that if an excavation were made the hole would be. filled from adjacent shingle. If the foot of the bank was undermined the whole lot came down. \\, . - Samuel I. Crookes, consulting -engineer, said that a hole on the beach would cause fretting, and a decided tendency to bring down the shingle from ■ highs? up. ,{■'■ -. Donald McLeod, an owner of land at Waiheke, gave evidence of the effect of removing shingle from his property . Statement lor Defence. '* . Mr. Paterson, for the defence, submitted that iio;.damage had, been done. No injunction should issue', in view of the fact that plaintiff was sufficiently .protected by the Marine Department. , The permit had now expired, and the Court could not presume that defendants would commit an offence. Therefore the injunction was unnecessary. ! John Thomas Hooks,/ master of the Waiti, said he had been in the shingle business all his life. About 17 years ago he was in a scow taking shingle 'from Shingle Bay, and the skipper paid Chamberlin 7s a scow load. There was no mention of damage in those days. He loaded the scow, keeping 12ft from highwater mark. Eighteen inches was about his greatest excavation.' His excavations caused no damage to the beach. : The hole would fill up as the tides came in. To His Honor, defendant said a scow carrying 65 cubic yards would pay 15s a load seventeen years ago. Now, for such a load, they would pay £6 10s to the Marine Department. , v ; - .;", - . Alfred H. Bryant, joint defendant with Hooks, stated that the permit had expired, and he was not going to be party to any offence against the; law. ~- ■ ' : , ' A number of seafaring men who had long experience in; the shingle trade also gave evidence. Mr. Meredith said that in granting an injunction, there needed k|fie a reasonable, probable anticipated injury that was going to follow. There was a ; duty on the Court to see that natural ; barriers between the sea and the; land.were not removed. He .contended that no danger was tobe apprehended by plaintiff. v George Harold Tanner, an inspector of the Marine Department, stated that they would not issue a permit * where there was any prospect of damage to land, or of bringing shingle down., The" case was adjourned till to-day.