DISPUTE ABOUT DRAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19372, 6 July 1926, Page 14

DISPUTE ABOUT DRAIN.

COST OF MAINTENANCE. FARMERS' APPLICATION FAILS, [BY TELEGRAPH.—-OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Monday. The hearing was concluded in the Hamilton Assessment Court to-day of the case in which George Cornfoot, farmer, Hamilton (Mr. P. H. Watts), made an application to compel Frederick J. Saxby, farmer, Hamilton (Mr. J. F. Strang), to contribute to the cost of widening, deepening . and cleaning a drain which ran approximately along the boundary between the properties occupied by the parties. In support of the application it was contended by Mr. Watts that the drain was really a boundary and that together with the post and wire fence which was constructed on Saxby's side of the drain, constituted a composite fence. Mr. Strang argued that the drain was not a boundary drain, that it ran wholly through Cornfoot's property and that it had been constructed through a large area of swamp land long before the subdivision was contemplated. It was pointed out that while Saxby'3 land was undulating Cornfoot's was largely of a swampy nature and that the measure of benefit to be derived from the drain was largely in Cornfoot's favour. The Court inspected the locality on Friday and announced to-day that it had come to the decision that the drain was not a boundary drain. The Court was of the opinion that even if the drain was held to he a boundary drain there was insufficient evidence to determine in what proportion the cost of cleaning and reconstruction should be borne.

The application was dismissed and Cornfoot was ordered to pay £27 costs.