THE THAMES HAURAKI

Thames Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 9616, 19 April 1900, Page 2

THE THAMES HAURAKI

AND THE DRAINAGE BOARD

QUESTION BEFORE THE WARDEN.*

At the Warden's Court this morning, before Mr. R. S. Bush, the duplicate appeals lodged; by the Victoria, Thames-Hauraki, Waiotahi, Kuranui, Kuranui-C'aledonian, Moanatairi and May Queen G.M.Cos., against the original and supplementary assessments levied by the Thames Drainage Board, came; on for

hearing.: Mr. Earl appeared for thel Thames Drainage Board, Mr. Parr for 1 the Tliames-Hauraki, and Mr. Clendon for i Mi*. The©. Cooper, solicitor for thej Wiiiotatii, Kuranui-Caledonian and Victoria' Companies. Mr. Clendon said be was instructed by Mr. Cooper to apply for am adjournment.. He made the application on the ground that the last adjournment was granted, not at the request of Mr. Cooper', but at the request of tha other parties, Mr. Cooper being ready to go on. Mr. Cooper consented to an adjournment tol the 19th. of April, conditionally only, the condition being that if he required ai further adjournment to-day it would be granted. He understood that the counsel of the different companies interested met in Auckland on the eve of the day on which the cases were set down for 1 hearing last month, and discussed the position. Mr. Cooper was quite ready to come to the Thames, but on being asked to conr sent to the adjournment said he would do so until to-day. He, however, . stipulated that as he had engagements at the Court of Appeal, sitting a,t Wellington in April, he should have the right to a further adljournment if the circumstances required it. Mr. Cooper was unable to be present, but he had forwarded an affidavit, which hel would read. Mr. Clendon them read the affidavit, which set forth the circumstances of the arrangement made between Mr. Campbell and Mr. Cooper as to the conditions on which the latter consented to the adjournment. He was informed that Mr. Samuel Hesketh, one of tins attorneys for the Thames-Hauraki, was fully aware of Lhe arrangement made. It appeared also that it was known to> the other counsel engaged, ass Mr. Tunks, who represented the May Queen Company, was not represented in court. Mr. Earl: I represent Mr. Tunks. Mr. Clendon said that he applied tor an adjournment on the ground of arrangement and agreement made between the other parties and Mr. Coop-

\?r. . . Mr.. Earl said that he could not resist the application for the adjournnent.' He desired to explain that on ;he cve 1 of the date! set down for the hearing of the appeals in March the i)rainage Board found it necessary to .nake a supplementary assessment. The Board concluded there would be • v crop of objections to the supplementary assessment as well as to the original. It was found necessary to allow time for these objections to be -ent in, and consequently all parties iVere of one mind that the cases should be adjourned so that both original and supplementary appeals could be dealt with together. Mr. Campbell waited on the other solicitors interested and it was agreed that an adjournment .should be obtained. Mr. Samuel Hesketh was the firstwaited upon, and he suggested that an arrangement should be come to in writing, which was done, and his signature was the first to be obtained. Mr. Cooper said he was willing to go on with his appeal then. It wasi pointed out to him that as there would certainly be another appeal against the supplementary rates, that he would probably only have his journey to the Thames for nothing, as in all probability the Warden would say he would consider both appeals together. Mr. Cooper was thus persuaded to agree to an adjournment, but owing to a difficulty in fixing another date besides the! 19th! April, he could not guarantee being present in consequence of having to go to Wellington. Mr. Hesketh was consulted, and left it to Mr, Campbell to make the best arrangement he could with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Cooper that he should have another adjournment! if he> could not attend on the 19th April. He believed Mr. Parr would urge an objection to the adjournment; So far as the board was concerned they were- only too anxious to conclude this matter, and had taken every possible step in tlxat direction. The only matter; to be decided by the Warden was the amount of contributions the companies would haye 1 to pay. Mr. Parr said! he was instructed to resist the application. So far as the company he represented was concerned there had been no such agreement with Mr. Cooper : , as Mr. Clendon had mentioned.' Mr. C. A. Harris was present, and would be put in the box. Mr. Clendon had read Mr. Cooper's affidavit, and it was only right Mr. Harris should also be heard. It seemed to him there was no ground for refusing to hear the appeal of the Thames-Hauraki against the assessment? With regard to other appeals, that was altogether ai different matter, If the court ordered a, further adjournment he would have nothing to say. But as regarded the appeal lodged by the Thames-Hauraki, there had been no reason placed before the court, which was sufficient ground for granting the adjournment. He regretted having to oppose the adjournment, but it was urgent the matter should be gone on with to-day. Mr. Harris, who would be called, would state that so far as his company was concerned no further postponement was to be made, and the matter was to be finally dealt j with to-day. Mr. Hesketh had aesured him that there was no suggestion of having another 1 adjournment if it suited Mr. Cooper's convenience. There could be no suggestion of bad faith on the part of the Thames-Hauraki. He then called Mr. Harris.

The company had spent over £7000 in draining, but could not go on under the present condition of affairs, but) had agreed to continue pumping until the 19th, inst." This was) a third and final - adjournment he had agreed to. He wished to have the whole matter 1 pone into to-day. If it was not settled to-day the pumps would have to stop on Saturday next. His company had expended £7800 in pumping during the! past sixteen months. This application seems to have been made to enable one solicitor to get two fees instead of one. Mr. Cooper's) absence has cost them £500.

To Mr. Earl: Mr. Hesketb is our solicitor. I attend to the 1 active part of the management. Our object is to j have this matter thrashed out as I soon as possible, so that we may know our position. Mr. Cooper had plenty of time W arrange for another solicitor to appear for his companies. To Mr; Bush: We do not want to atop on Saturday, but we want to have this matter settled. This matter has been dallied with for some months, and although the 1 board has agreed to pay the Thames-Hauraki £5800 a year to drain .the whole ! field, we want to know that the money is forthcoming. Some of the companies have made a,bsurd objections to the assessment. The Waiotahi objected that the machinery was too good. Mr. Bush: That Beems an. extrar ordinary objection. Mr. Harris snid that if the board made a payment on account he would be prepared to continue pumping. Mr. Bush: Suppose the appeals were disposed of to-day, would that help you very much? Mr. Harris: If all these technical objections were disposed of I would undertake to raise the money to carry on with for another month. The company has no more money to carry on with, and unless this matter is settled and the board finds the money, the pumping .operations will cease on Saturday. Mr.- Earl said the affidavit of Mr. Hesketh omitted am important condition, which Mr. Hesketh had no doubt omitted in stress of business. The' threat of shutting down the pump was unseemly and entirely uncalled for. The Drainage Board had done all it could, striking a supplementary rate after the original assessment. He read the terms of the ■'Thames-Hauraki Company's offer," accepted by the board under the conditions quoted. Under the agreement the Thames-Hauraki Company could claim from the board £5800 of rates, provided the board could collect them, as the board' members were

under no personal liability. Mr. Earl then read the agreement, as drawn up between, the Drainage Board and the Thames-Hauraki! Company, and signed, and said that nothing could be fairer than the arrangement that the company should haveboth pumpa and ail the ratea Yefc Mr.l Harris made the unseemly threat of shutting down. The objections of the Waiotahi and Kuranui-Caledonian 'Companies contained assertions that che drainage was unnecessary, There had been absolute good faith on the part of phe board. As the ThamesHauraki Company would not and couldl not be prejudiced, he thought there could be no objection, to an adjournment. The board had not yet collected the rates, and did not keep a, big balance at the bank, and could not pay the company £500 or £600 at once. Mr. Harris: Would they do it if they had it? Mr. Earl: I have no doubt they would. . The Warden said he would require very strong evidence in order to rule (■hat the amount of the assessment .as m whole w;aa excessive. That was a; different thing from differentiating as to the assessments between individual companies. He hoped that this intimation' would reassure Mr. Harris M to the position. Mi*. Part 1 said that after the Warden's direcli expression; of opinion on this point, which covered part of Mr. Harris' objection, he would consent to an adjournment if it was not unnecessarily long. Some conversation took placd as to what would! be a date suitable to all' parties*

Mr. Parr: The position is that Mr. Harris has to find £500 per month. We are not going to close down just for fun, as suggested by Mr. Earl. We are being prejudiced. It waa mutually agreed that the hearing be adjourned to Tuesday, 15th, prox., at 10.30 a,m. Mr. Parr: Definitely, this time, I hope. The Warden: We cannot again adjourn for anybody or anything, not •rren if some learned counsel has unfortunately died.