CIVIL ACTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6745, 17 February 1909, Page 7

CIVIL ACTION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16.

COMPENSATION COURT HAWBRA LIGHT COMPANY r. BOROUGH OF ELTHAM. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Cooper (president) and G. V. Pearce, M.P. (assessor for claimants) and J. Boddie (assessor for tho respondents). A QUESTION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS. The claimants in this case, which had been commenced on tlio previous day, were the Jlawera County Mectric Company, Ltd., auu the respondents the .mayor, councillors and bu.gesscs of the Borough of Kltham. Mr C. P. SKerrctt, K.C., with'him Mr H. H. Ostler (instructed by Mr it. ,G. Sellar, as representing Mr H. Hallswell, of Hawera), for the claimants; and the Attorney-General (Dr J. G. Findlay, K.C.), with liinv Mr J. L. Stout, for tho respondents. . This case was argued before the Full Court in July last, when the claimants' right to compensation was declared and tho question as to the amount of compensation was referred to tho present Court. Tho amount of tho claim had been reduced from £4200 'to £2400.

The question presented for the consideration of the Court by the clnimants was whether there was enough water left in the Waiugongoro to drive claimants' turbine'plant, tho respondent borough having put iiii a 9-inoh pipe, above tho company's dam, which it was said was capable of taking from tho stream 765,000 gallons per twenty-four hours at a pressure of 501 b to the square inch. Thirty gallons per diem per head of the population of the Borough of Kltham was taken as tho average of domestic consumption, and this it was estimated totalled 126,000 gallons, the present population of 1400 being trebled in view of the natural increases of tjio future; the balance of the water taken by the borough -would be devoted to the purposes of street and garden watering, leaving.a balance of 639,000 gallons. The loss on the domestic supply was estimated at one-third or 42,000 gallons, and the loss on the extraordinary supply at 575,000 gallons, making a total of 617,000 gallons. When the Court sat to-day, the Attorney-General (Dr Findlay, K. 0.), opened the case for the ' respondents. He expressed the opinion that the Court had already oome to the cpnlelusion that the olaim was a remarkable one. Tho company'commenced operations in September 1904, and the borough's works commenced operation); practically contemporaneously. The company had no previous experience, of the river to guide them. In 1906 they found the river low, and at once jumped to the conclusion that this wak due to the borough's works, and they filed a claim for £4200. Subsequently they found that the defioienoy was due [ to the river itself and not to the re- t spondent borough at all. Then they reduced their claim. to £2400. ,The : Attorney-General submitted that this claim was a hasty and blundering misconception as to the effect of such works as those constructed by the Borough: of Eltham. If the company had had the .facts disclosed "to them as the respondent borough's evidence would disclose it, this claim would never have beerf brought before the Court. Indeed, tho claim, of £2400 was preposterous even on the evidence led by, Mr , Skerrejt. Assuming that the borough" had diverted aa much •water as the company alleged the question was what damages should bo. allowed, .upon the figures relied upon by the company? They admitted that as yet no damages Had been sustained although it was four and a-half years since-' the company began-operations. Their engineer, Mr Txevethick, had admitted that until last year there was more, water being wasted either through passing under •the weir or through the gates than amounted to 6£ h.p., and therefore a year and a-half after tho company, commenced operations, they treated the loss of 6J h.p. as " merely trivial. ihe same gentleman had said that tho mimimum "load" was 134 h.p., and if the dam' were raised 2ft they would get a pressure of from 160 to 200 h,p. Assuming that was so, they would have a reserve, of sixty-six h.p., which was ton times the power that would be ultimately required to be diverted when, the population of the borough had increased to 4200. It was admitted that claimants at present suffered no loss of water. It was ■ a question how long they would continue before-they did suffer any loss, for they had sixty-six h.p. in reserve. i As a matter of fact, so long as the company's reservoir contained a reserve of even thirty or forty h.p. their business would suffer no loss. Mr Trevethick himself had said that over * and above the normal "load" there should be fifteen or twenty h.p. in reserve, and that'if .the river did not provide a sufficient supply tho company would probably erect a sixty h.p. steam or gas plant. Therefore, • it might be deemed that fifteen to twenty h.p. might bo regarded as a prudent reserve, and that was three times the ataount which the borough was said to have exhausted from the river. It was therefore evident that if the company's anticipation with regard to the expansion , of their business was correct, they would very soon have to rely, upon steam or gas rather than upon the power obtainable from the stream. There was, at the most, only about fifty h.p. left in the river—how long would it'be before that quantity was exhausted? On, the company's figures and tho probability that within a few years they would have to put up a steam or gas power producing; plant, it would be found that'a very small sum w-ould cover the amount that could be rightly claimed by the company from the boroueh. The estimate of loss, it was submitted, should, be based upon the period of time the l ' erection of a gas ,or steam plant irns rendered necessary before it wauM' h".ve be e>T » '"f tb°re bnd been "n >I:T-pr-sion. Claimant was not entitled to aggravate his loss': and if the boroueh.' gave them th" d'ffprpnre in cost of i the erection of a sixty-eix h.rj. pr<fl o, six+v h.p. pla»>t t.b> iiirn would hp ample, on, +hpir f>vrn *?mireß. to them, and therefore an"y 0 ln«R ramp down to a very small sum in-, deed. ...■.' Gerald Fi+.Kcprald. 0.K., sta+«rl that the nVtprmf"tition nf tt»p oflii"t ? ty of , the-woter that would fl"w throiipb a pipe by metre, was..much more tMhoHb and'pa+iVfacforv +han any calculations by the formulae of any of the text-book writers in sncti a case, as •-It's:'-'When the'am.bunt ofWa+er Vs»r so small, any estimate could only be approximate. In witness's view, the company's claim for loss of power was by no means well founded. Richard S. Itounthwaite, C.E., also agreed that in such ciroumstances I <

metres were the most accurate method of determining the quantity of water which a '.>in pipe would carry. Henry W. Climie stated that he had made measurements of the outflow or water from the pipes by metre, but found it could not bo done, liy any o/ the text-book formulae. The Glthaix drains were automatically flushed daily. About 5001) gallons of wat-ei-was used for the purpose. Henry/ R. Climie and Frederick Black also gave evidence.

The Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on the following day.