FARMERS AT LAW

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23145, 17 September 1938, Page 22

FARMERS AT LAW

DAMAGE BY FLOODING DEFENDANT'S APPEAL FAILS NOT CASE FOR PRIVY COUNCIL [I)V TELKGRAPII —PKEHS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Friday Tn tlio rase of Alexander John Hopkiitk versus Kllen Dawson, tlio Court of Appeal refused an application for conditional leave to appeal to tlio Privy Ccwinoil from a judgment of tlio Court of l Appeal refusing a new trial of the action. Counsel for the appellant (Hopkirk) siiliniitted that although only £lsl damuigos had been awarded, the respondent (.Mrs. Dawson) would claim £SG(3 if ii new trial were granted. Tim dispute thus involved more than £6OO and therefore leave to appeal should be granted as of right. He further submitted that the matter was of public inipoirfance. Tlite Court declined to adopt the view that the dispute involved more than £SOO and did not consider the matter of sufficient public importance. Tlio appellant and the respondent are owners of adjacent farms near Te Teko, May of Plenty 1 in 1 f.'2G appellant gave the then owners of respondent's farm notice under the Land Drainage Act, 1908, requiring them to agree to the construction of a certain drain, which they did. After the construction of the drain the respondent bought the farm, knowing of the drain. Since then otlie; drains were constructed and in 15)3.'!, ID.'l) and I!M7 portion of tlio respondent's farm was Hooded with waters from drains on the appellant's land. Alleging that the flooding was duo to the wrongful act of the appellant in diverting waters oil Lis land so that they flowed on to her farm, the respondent sued the appellant last year in the Supreme Court, at Auckland, claiming £SGG damages fo" the loss of the use of the land, bringing it back into good pasture, fencing and other items of clamago. At the, trial of tlio action, before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury last November, His Honor entered judgment tor the respondent for £lsl and costs. Hopkirk appealed for a new trial, which was refused by The Court of Appeal. It was against this decision that Hopkirk again appealed, seeking leave to fake tlie case to the Privy Council.