Taieri Drainage Case. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2202, 14 May 1896, Page 12

Taieri Drainage Case. TO THE EDITOR.

Bib, — The county chairman's very lengthy manifesto having been published by you, and as its intention is to more befool the county ratepayers, adding insult to injury thereby, a counterblast becomes necessary, which by your kind leave I will attempt. Had a verbatim report of the trial been publish* d, and its absence is greatly regretted amongst 3 our large country circulation, the result of the trial would have been met by a thankful dignified silence — a trial for which in the light of the past there was no justification. But the stern demands of justice to Mrs Smith's fellow ratepayer* insists that all such feelings of grateful generosity shall be laid aside ; still it cannot fail to be gratifying to have her action so signally approved of in Mr Jnstice Williams'a lucid judgment. This preoious manifesto of Mr Graham's fairly bristles with false premises and suppressions of the truth. He bitterly cavils at those who conducted Mrs Smith's case that they shortened the proceedings by one day, and thereby relieved the unfortunate ratepayer! of probably an additional £100 of costs by nob calling eight of their witnesses, which evidence Mr Graham's band of witnesses quite involuntarily rendered unnecessary by proving that there existed after the construction of the Outram road nothing but dry creek beds on the church .lands and the Woodlands estate, for which Mrs Smith feels truly grateful. It was very amusing to wstch how the cavernous jaws of the afortsaid Dicely trained band dropped when Mr Inspector-general of Roads Oliver's report of 1863, which I bad by patient rese*rch dug out of a rubbish heap, in the Survey office, Dunedin, of over 3000 documents, and when the venerable gentleman appeared to support his report and the plan attached, which made all the nicely arranged tale as to the state of insttera prior to 1863 a nullity before his Honor the judge, and that the drainage of the Mill creek, and Mr Findlay'a land was running as near as possible in its natural channel alongside the now site of the Outrain road. And, while here, I may mention on the authority of my late friend, Mr J. T. Thomson— from whom and the late Mr Arthur, provincial engineer, I got in this connection much valuable information whilst alive — that Mr JPiudlay was told emphatically that no culvert would be placed through the road where there were no constant flowing streams. Bo Mr Findlay's statement is a pare figment, and those people whom Mr Graham says threaten the council with law if the water is again returned to the Mill stream, where it has 20ft of fall per mile, are impostors. According to the late Mr Thomson, the making of the Outrun ro%d enhanced Mr Findlay's whole property by £3 per acre. Your readers, I feel assured,, will concede that Me Hoba ffwdUu-'a nuns Quu hs

u,..i..»..|||ii MW ,i,,,,u«^. mm* the way, is a marriage connection of Mr John Graham's) wan rightly in the front iv the trud and judgment an the chief wrong-doer, and was shielded both by the Church Board of Property and the County Council, when I tell them thai; &3 a county ratepayer I offered, at my own cost, to raise the objected-to culvert 2£fb— -to grass level,— which would have ended the difficulty, offering in return for such cono-snion to thS couucil a be lid slid indemnity of £2000, Fofighti if need be Mr Findlay and all-oomer«. Thii off"r wan made and rejected on 7th December 1894. Why does the cbair.in*n suppress thi* information? Through the chairman, Mr Peter Murdoch (an old servant and ally of Mb FincUhy's), and if Cr Bamson speaki the truth, I the Church Board of also, all acting in concert, b>ve very cleverly worked their case at the expense of county ratepayers. Mr G> aharri also conceals the f «ot that in 1870 Mr Findlay, with an embankmsnfc attaohed to th c road nenr the culvert, caused the overthrow from his Silverstream new channel to crota th c road in order to force a culvert at that point. The rrßult was that his neighbour's property was thereby des'royed, and tbe loe« «f life spoken of in the manifesto caused. Ntith^rdoes he mention the evidence of Mr Findlay's own letters with Mr Arthur, engineer of the Outram railway, concerning I tbnt gentleman's wrongful interference with a culvert oh t.h« railway to send the water down on the road and church lands, and Mr Arthur's warning, holding him ret ponsible to the settler* btlow the line for such wrongful act— nil of which evidence wa« produced in court. Neither does Mr Grab am »ay anytbing about the ditch cut by Mr P. Murdoch, **id to be on the chair* man's ad-rice, cnttioic through * gravel ridge to lead tbe water to Duice'a road, so that Mrs SmithY un^een^ itumimate, helpless embankmtn* should be fclatne3£or Shaft which it could nob fx>F-ibly £0, and give (the 'chairmen, Tinder tbe allrg&non of icjnry to thn roa^, * >ch«jjce to begin an action with tbe county money. I will here stop, and with jour Mod panmixH'si resume the narrative of this dear suit to ifclie rate* payers later on. — I am, fee., A. Smith. j Woodland, North Taieri, May 8. I [We have been^oM'ged to considerably alter our correspondent's letter, much of it being libellous as originally written. Probably, also, he has sufficiently replied to the county chairman without further encroaching on cur space.— Ed O D.T.]