DISPUTED DRAINAGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24421, 5 October 1940, Page 15

DISPUTED DRAINAGE

OBSTRUCTION TO CULVERT COUNTY COUNCIL'S PROSECUTION An unusual prosecution was made under the by-laws of the Taieri County Council at the Mosgiel Court yesterday before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., the Taieri County Council proceeding against Herman Sonntag, a nurseryman, of Riccarton road, on a charge of damaging or obstructing a drain or culvert belonging to, and controlled by, the council. Giving his verdict against the defendant, the magistrate said that matters had been touched upon which could not be dealt with in that court. Mr N. W. Rowan represented the council, and Mr R. D. Jamieson appeared for Sonntag. Alfred Walker Findlay, inspector of works for the Taieri County Council, gave evidence that, when this portion of the road had been formed some years ago, it had been built up to overcome the difficulty caused by flooding, but no provision had been made for the excess water. It was found that the road was constantly scoured out, and a culvert had been put in. There > was a ditch alongside the road on the side opposite to Sonntag's property, and the water drained through from Mill Creek in time of flood. Recently some 400-gallon tanks had been placed in the waterway to block it.—To Mr Jamieson, witness said the culvert was a double one with pipes of about 2ft 6in diameter. The tanks were about Bft away from the outlet of the culvert in Sonntag's property, and were, he contended, in the natural waterway. The pipes had originally discharged almost directly on Sonntag's property, but at the latter's request some six feet of the pipes had been removed. The water, however, followed its natural flow, as there was a slight depression in the ground there. Mill Creek at this neighbourhood was an artificial straight cut. To the magistrate: The manner in which the tanks were placed retarded the flow of the water. For the defence, Mr Jamleson said the real point at issue was the disposal of the water which was simply discharged on Sonntag's land. This water, it was claimed, came from a system of ditches as well as from Mill Creek, and if the council had power to discharge the water on Sonntag's land, it was surely its duty to provide some drain to carry the water away. To decide these points would involve considerable research among civil authorities. As for the point of the actual case in hand, he contended that there was no evidence of damage or obstruction to the actual culvert or drain. The magistrate at this stage ruled that an obstruction to the flow of water from a culvert was an obstruction to the culvert. The defendant said he had objected to the culvert when it was installed about six years ago. Formerly there had been an embankment in the property parallel with the road to block the water, but portion of this bank near the culvert had been removed to build up the Mill Creek embankment. There was no provision for the drainage of the water down the road to the creek after it passed through the culvert. The paddock had been cultivated and the water could flow where it liked. He did not agree that the culvert was at the lowest point of the roadway. ~ , , The magistrate said all he could deal with was the actual charge of obstruction and he was satisfied that such an obstruction had been caused. He imposed a fine of ss, with costs (10s), and solicitor's fee (£2 2s).