TAIERI DRAINAGE CASES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2719, 25 April 1906, Page 11

TAIERI DRAINAGE CASES.

The hearing of the case of Thomas Clark versus the Otokia. Drainage Board was continued before Mr Woodhouse at Mosgiel on Thursday. Mr J. F. M. FraseT appeared for the claimant, Mr Stephens for the School Commissioners, and Mr John MacGregor for the defendant board. Nathaniel Paterson, cross-examined by Mr MacGregor, further explained his recent ireasurenients by reference to plans. These levels, were not taken for the purpose of enabling Mr Anderson to prepare a model. Witness did not know they were to be us-sd for that purpose. . Tho levels were taken j by witness and Mr Wilmot for the purpose of getting *full information regarding this particular part. Z hey also took some levels of Duck Creek, below the -crosscut. No. 1 cross section of Duck Creek was token just about the same place/ a? Mr Anderson and witness took their 'previous '.toss section. He made ihe area 58 square feet, and lis previous one was 45 equare feet. The difference was accounted for by the fact tha-t in measuring the crosscut and Duck Creek, fee did not in either case take into the measurement the dead water where it spread up tho bank. The first measurements he took of ' Duck Cre«k were not misleading for purposes of comparison. In his second mensurennc-nt -he had taken tho dead water into account. That was the proper way to take a cross section. By Mr Fraser: The two first cross sections -he took ".vere taken for the- purpose of comparing Duck Creek with the crosscut. The two first were both taken by the BKme method. He thought, they were quite effective for purposes o£ comparison. He did not call himself a hydraulic enpir~er. At that stage Mr Fraser intimated that j ho Jiad a proposal to make, with a view of shortening the proceedings — namely I hat j all tho evidence already given should be ; taken to anply to all the cases, yrith Vave to both sides to call further evidence. Mr MaoGrcsor said that he would only ] consent to this proposal if all the cases j were heard as one. Otherwise, each care must be heard on its merita. Mr Fraser said that thp object of his propeeal was m-ei'ely to bring the cases to a ccnolue-on as speedily as rossible. Mr Woodhous?: I think that course is extremely desirable. It was agreed that counsel should confer, in order to see whether an agreement could be arrived at. Edward O'Neill, Orown lands ranger, stated that he visited the dam on September 23, 1905, abiut * o'clock in the afternoon. Columb was with him. The water was then about 2in from the ton of the dam. There \v«s a light wind from the south-wes^ — from upstream, that was. Witness was at Momona in the flood time, both in 190* and 1905. He jjrodueed plans showing the areas flooded in those year? respecti vely. Cross^exa/nined by Mr MacGrego--, vitness said that he had not taken any particular interest in theso cases. Anything ha had done had been don* under instruction from his superior officers. Nothing vas said t-bouh th-s cost of Hio proeoedinirs wrhen he pot Home to sign the claim. If Home said that he did not fix tho amount of his claim, witness would not contradict him. By Mr Fi-a-sor : Witness's present plan was compiled from points marked on l.is old plan at thp time. He was not con- I cerned about the area, but h<* took ti o j marks. At the time when he examined the dam «>n September 23 he stood prin- j chfallv riffht on tho centre of it. j J. T. Noblo Anderson was recalled at this &ta.^e, and stated his d{>siro to mak*> a personal explanation. " I was very muoh concerned about certain statfrnrnis made in this court," he said. " I v. r as concerned with statements as t/> the evidence of professional men. Tf I thought for a moment that the court took me for a professional witness instead of a professional gentl-eman I should ff-el myself to bo in such a position as would mako it in.pofsible for me to give-my evidence." Mr Woodhouse: I quite understand that, Mr Andereon. Mr And'frs'jn : Tho inference from cprlain remarks mado here is that certain people are paid to giv<* ovirjpnee of a certain sort. That statement do€ 6 not apply in the case of my cvidonce. I came here Mr Woodhouse: I do not think any suggestion has been made here that you have given evidence clher ih:in that given ty any professional witness. The term " professional witness" was not so lead as^ to ii.fer that you are a witness by profession. There was no suggestion of that port. You need not concern vourseif about that. Mr Anderson : So long as that is understood Mr Fraser : We have had some 6neering references to theoretical knowledge — the value of theoretical knowledge, as opposed to practical knowledge, and all that sort of thing. I should like you now to tell the court what experience you have had in your profession. We had better, get that down, and have an end of this sort of thine. Witness (proceeding) said that he was a civil and hydraul : c engineer. Be first started in responsible charge of works in 1885. He got his eert^k-ate as a practical hydraulic engineer In March, 1890. That certificate showed five years' experience in responsible positions in connection with hydraulic wonk. In the execution of those works he had much experience of the measurement of watr. both by weirs and 1 meters. His first official position in Victoria was that of contractor's engineer and manager on tho London weir, works involving an outlay of £60,000. He was no\t employed by the Victorian Water Supply Department, as engineer in charge of urbar and rural wate" trusts;. He went into private practice in 1892. after the conclusion of these works. One of h'S first commissions involved a visit to Holland and various parts of the Old Country for the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works. On behalf of the Chirnsides he located the 6ite for the private Welby Se%verage Farm, where 8600 acres were now irrigated. About the same time he acted as engineer for the Torrumburry Irrigation Trust," the Elmore Watsr Trusts, and the Helensville. Water Trust, and afterwards for the Mildura Irrigation and Water Trust. "While tlwre he also represented the Government, the Sunbeam Hydraulic Company, the Great Southern Tin Mine, the Campbell's Creek Hydraulic Sluicinsf Company, and carried out the Helensville drainage scheme; and he was consulting engineer to the Warrnambool. Hamilton, Werribee. an 3 Bacchus Marsh Water Trusts. In addition to that, he had had experience as a mechanical engineer. In his last three years in Victoria, he contracted for and constructed 30 bridges across rivers. He also er<jct«d

I three 250 horse-power pumping plants worked by electricity. All these works I were connected with hydraulics. During I the 21 years he spoke of his experience had been entirely practical ; prior to that it was practical and theoretical. He bad the advantage of studying the methods of the late James Thomson, who stood as high in hydraulics as hk brother Lord Kohm. Some of the works witness was employed on were designed by Sir Joseph Bazangatte. During the Easter holidays witness had profitably employed himself in taking certain levels at Momona. (Witness explained at length by reference to a pan.) The only difference between distributed rain and a local downfall would occur, so fan as the discharge of Duck Creek was concerned, if the storm continued for more than 48 hours, because during the first pa.rt of the storm the retardation of flow in Duck Creek woi'ld make the level of the water in that creek, where it discharged into Watson's box, lay behind the rainfall which caused it, at most, only six or eight hours. The Taieri River would respond to the rainfall two to three days later. Witness gave various orher statements regarding the dam at trieat length by reference to a plan produced. He sa.'d fcliat ho gave his opinions with considerable confid«nce, because h« had had a good deal of experience in levelling and grading similar country for irrigation. A young man named Casey held the staff while witness was taking the levels. Witness exercised care in the holding of the staff. On several occasions he satisfied himself that it was plumb by seeing it \va\e. Holding the staff out of plumb would make the level of th© ground on which the staff"- was held api-ear to. the man holding the instrument as if it was lower than it leally was. He put 'In a model of the clbpre^i&n at Momona. This witness gave evidence on technical points at great length, making- frequent illustrative refer-enea to plans before the court. The court adjourned till 10. SO a.m. on Tuesday, Mr Anderson's evidence proceed-