A FARMER'S CLAIM.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 881, 6 December 1916, Page 2

A FARMER'S CLAIM.

COMPENSATION SOUGHT. TRACK OF A WATER RACE. His Honour Mr Justice Donniston presided over a sitting - of the Compensation Court at Asliburton yesterday to hear a claim brought by (100. Spencer, fanner, of Carcw, Ealing, against the Asliburton County Council for £336 compensation by reason of the defendant council having constructed a. water race through his property. The assessors were James Cow, farmer, of Tinwald (for the claimant), and Mr Thomas Blaekley, farmer of South Rakaia (for the defendant). Mr F. J. Rolleston (of Timarn) appeared for the claimant, and Mr C. W. Purnell for the defendant. Plaintiff claimed £1.'16 for the loss of the use of land over which the council had acquired rights and easements —l(i acres at £8 10/- per acre, and £2OO for damage caused by severance and the nature of the works, the value of 400 acres being reduced by 10/- per acre.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing the court visited the locality, and inspected the land concerned. Mr Rolleston said that the Asliburton County Council, acting under the powers given by the Water Supply Act, took an easement over land a chain wide for 160 chains, the property of the claimant. The claimant claimed both in respect to that land and the adjoining land prejudicially affected. The real dispute, he understood, would arise over the second part, of the claim. There could be no question that defendant had been deprived of the 16 acres over which the easement, was taken. The water race did not supply the claimant's property, but carried the water beyond. The race was of no use to him, and he had not benefited from it. He was already well supplied in every paddock. His Honour: Ho you say, Mr Purnell, Hint the claimant has derived"any benefit?

Mr Purnell: Oh, yes, sir, There were, two big paddocks that did not have any water.

Mr Rolleston: That is not so, sir, as a result of the angles caused in Ihe paddocks by the race about a miarfer of the 400 acres would not be able to be worked, and the additional cost of working the land would be from 2/- to °/- per acre. Every agricultural operation would be made more difficult and costly. That was the whole claim for Hie land prejudifiallv affected. Assuming that for 3.ore* extra cost of working was 2/- an acre the added cost spread over the whole 400 acres would be fid per acre, and. that amount capitalised constituted their claim. They "-ere not claiming a penny more than + hey could establish. There was a distinct danger of sheep being drowned in the race. The utmost set-off, he claim"(l, that the council could establish in -eg-ard to severance would not amount to more than £lO. The claim made had been placed as low as possible, and every allowance had been made to the council. A conservative value of the T oss by reason of the severance was upwards of £lO per annum.

Geo. Arthur Bridges, survevor, gave formal evidence as to the water races.

The claimant, in evidence, said he objected to the council taking the race through his property. He estimated the "xrrieultural loss to his property at from ?/- to '3/- per acre. He had lost three ewes and two lambs in the race during ; the last. IS months. ,Fwes lost lambs by reason of the race, taking one over the bridee and leaving another behind, the latter thus becoming lost. He was still paying the County Council the same for water as he had paid before the construction of the race. He valued the 'and at £l3 an acre at the time it was •■nken. The depreciation in value of the 400 acres was at least 10/- an acre. The council did not put as many bridges across the race as witness asked for. There were no sides to the bridges that the council had put up,-and when sheep were driven across several fell over the sides. This occurred every time sheep were driven across. A trap or an implement could not be taken over the bridges, and had to be taken to the ford to get across. W T itness had had trouble through the race overflowing. In 15 vears the old water supply had never failed, even in dry seasons.

To Mr Purnell: Witness grew oats, turnips, and rape on the land. He had never let the land. The carrying of the new water race through his paddocks was a slight benefit. He had never lost sheep in any race but the new race. Before the race was put down witness went over the ground with the county engineer, and they decided on the site. Twelve bridges were mentioned. Witness pointed out the sites particularly, and specially pointed out the site of the one whose absence he now complained of.

To Mr Eolleston: He wrote to the council stating what he wanted.

To his Honour: As to the value of the land through wlib-h the water race ran, he could not say that it was higher than the average value of his land. Henry Arthur Ellery, steam ploughing contractor at Ealing, said he had ploughed four of the claimant's paddocks. He found that the water race made the work much more difficult and awkward by having so many angles. Ho would charge 2/- an acre more for ploughing there than in an ordinary paddock.

His Honour said the conditions were not immutable. Claimant could alter liis fences to meet the changed conditions. From the stand he was taking he might obtain damages on the present position, and then alter his fences to meet the changed conditions. What he wanted to know was what would a reasonable purchaser of the land deduct I'Rom his purchase price because of the race.

John Robert Simpson, farmer of Lismore, said he considered that 400 acres of the claimant's land was reduced in value by reason of the race by 10/- per acre. The race was of very little, use to the farm, which was very well watered by the existing races. The moving of the paddock fences would not do much good in meeting the difficulties. The farm he understood was a mixed farm. It would grow wheat.

Thomas Bennett, farmer, of Unapuna, gave corroborative evidence. The depreciation in value over the wlioh farm was ">/- an acre at the lowest.

Howard Barton, farmer of Carcw, placed the depreciation at from 7/0 to 10/- an acre.

Norman Orr, fanner, Euapuna, gave similar evidence. The depreciation over the 400 acres was, ho considered, 15/- per acre.

For the defence Mr I'urneH submitted that the court should consider whether the farm as a whole had been injured. The claimant derived some very substantial advantages from the race. Jfe had 14.4 acres of land watered free of charge. He proposed to call evidence to show that so far from having been decreased in value this land had been increased in value. This claim was the first of the kind that had been

made against the council, which had put in large numbers of similar races. Henry A. Knight, sheep farmer, :i member of the Malvern County Council, said he had examined the plaintiff's land, and came to the conclusion that the race was really a benefit. The farm was a mixed one. A supply of water was absolutely essential. lie could not agree that the farm as a whole hail depreciated in value. Any farm that had a main race was in a much better position than a farm that depended on branch races. To Mr Rolleston: Witness had not been in the Ashburton district before. He had made an adequate inspection of the property. The property was a well watered one. He did not regard the severance as very important. In particular paddocks directly affected by the race the cost of ploughing would be greater, but the greater cost, of harrowing would be infinitesimal. He did not agree that the race was a danger to stock.

Kenneth McKenzie, farmer of Geraldine and chairman of the Geraldine County Council, said he had had 25 years' experience of water races. He considered the water race an improvement to the property. William McMillan, farmer of Cashmere, said the passage of the race through two fresh paddocks of the farm must enhance its value. The ground could be used right up to the edge of the race.

Charles Morrison, county engineer, said the race at its deepest part in the claimant's land was about 2ft. 9in, with an average of about 18 inches. Mr Siiencer was consulted as to the location of crossings and bridges. The bridges cost the council £9 each, and the crossings £4 each. The bridges were better than the ordinary sheep bridge. They were six feet wide.

C. J. Harper, chairman of the Ashburton County Council, said claimant's farm would be almost worthless without water. The construction of the race had benefited the land. '. \ t the court, had considered its decision, his Honour announced that the award would be for £Ki6. As this did not amount to half the claim, there would be no costs.