CLEARING OF DRAIN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22724, 10 May 1937, Page 16

CLEARING OF DRAIN

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE [by telegraph—OWN correspondent] PALMERSTON NORTH, Saturday

The question whether a drainage board could order a property owner to remove obstructions from a drain under the board's control instead of doing the work itself was argued before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court, when the Moutoa Drainage Board appealed against a decision of Mr. J H. Salmon, S.M. Respondents were Messrs. Kaston and Stevens, ol Moutoa, and the facts revealed were that they had ignored the hoard's order, with the result that the hoard had done the work itself and billed them with the cost. There had iollowed a civil action for recovery of the amount involved, but the magistrate found for the property owners, not on the ground that the hoard had no power to order the removal of the obstruction by Easton and Stevens, but because the board had adopted the wrong procedure in trying to recover the amount. The magistrate contended that the board should have taken action to have the owners convicted for failing to comply with the order and have the cost of the work fixed by the Court. 11 is Honor endeavoured to trace out the sequence ol' the procedure that the board should have adopted, and admitted that the more lie considered the Drainage Act the more complicated it appeared. Decision was reserved, the case being described by His Honor as an important one.