MRS CAMPBELL V. DRAINAGE BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16942, 2 March 1917, Page 2

MRS CAMPBELL V. DRAINAGE BOARD.

■■. — o , JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., read his reserved decision in the case in which Mrs Campbell, of Heriot row, claimed the sum of £100 from the Dunedin Drainage Board'and its engineers as damages for trespass upon her property in constructing a drain to connect Mrs Dick's property with an existing drain (i.e., that of the plaintiff). ' . ■ Mr Bartholomew said the evidence established, as was admitted by plaintiff's solicitor at the conclusion thereof, (1) That Mrs Dick's property could not be drained except through an adjoining property, and (2) that the most Economical and most effective course was through Mrs Campbell's property. Mrs Campbell made allegations thai - the board's officials hud improperly mado arrangements with Mrs.Dick's architects re- 1 garding the drain. This was completely disproved by the evidence, showed that an application for a drain-iii-common was made in the. ordinary course, that the usual procedure was adopted by the board, and that the fullest consideration wasgiven 'to the matter and to Mrs Campbell's objection. Mr Brugh, for the plaintiff, did not contend that the board had'no power , to do the work, but that that power could be exercised only after application and payment of. compensation under the Land Drainage Act. After comparing the orig-inal-Act and the amending- Acts, Mr Bartholomew went on to say it was clear that drains-in-common'existed under the original Act, although that technical designation had not been appropriated to them by statute; at that time. The subsequent amending provisions enabling the board to utilise an .existing drain for a combined drainage • and thereby creating a drain-in-common were the natural development and amplification of the powers conferred in the original Act In hJR opinion a review of the legislation showed that section U of " The Amendment, Act, 1906," and section 24 of_ "The Amendment Act, tt 1909." were enabling- arid not restrictive provisions. They were provisions with cases not covered by the general powers of the board, and were not in limitation of-such general powers. He was, therefore, of opinion that tho board's powers were regularly exercised. Mrs Campbell's then solicitors (not Mr Brugh's firm) raised no question as to the. legality of the board's procedure, but Mrs; Campbell appeared to bo 'obsessed by an unfortunate belief that she was not getting a square deal at the hands of the board's officials in consequence of something that she had ■ heard. The evidence showed thai any. such suggestion was quite devoid of foundation. . Judgment was given for. the board, with costs as follows: —Witnesses expenses, £6 14s v *6d; court costs, 16s, solicitor's fee £5;