RANGIORA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6833, 22 April 1890, Page 3

RANGIORA.

This Day. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., and E. R. Good and A. Todd, Esqs.) Slaughter-house License. — A renewal was granted to Alexander Campbell. Civil Cases. — B. R. Good v. Mrs T. Noble ; case held over to allow of the summons being served on defendant's husband. — W. Dailey v. C. Dailey, claim .£25 ss, wages. Plaintiff did not appear. Defendant stated that he had an order on the Finance Company for the amount, but they would not recognise it. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, and costs. — J. G. E. Winsloe v. G. Buekinan, claim .£5 7s 2d; judgment for plaintiff. — F. Chisnell v. S. Cleaver, claim £2 ss, balance for a pair of jockey's boots; judgment by default for amount. — L. Newbury v. W. A. and L. M. Fowler, claim .£43 185; judgment by default for amount, and coats. A Trespass Case. — 0. Ivens v. R. Pear and others, claim ,£35. Mr Greason for plaintiff; Mr Spacksman for defendants. This was a claim for damages. Caroline Ivens, the plaintiff, stated that she was owner of sections abutting on a creek running into the Ashley. Held the property under the will of her late husband. She did not reside on the property. From something that she heard lately she inspected the plane on Easter Monday and found that a floodgate had been erected on her land across the creek. She. owned the land on both sides ,of the creek. The flood gate extended some feet on to the land on both sides of the creek. Witness gave no permission to have the gate erected. Did not know that it wa9 being erected until it was nearly finished. Was never consulted about it. Cross-examined: The land ia let. There is no mortgage upon it. It was about fifteen years since she lived on the property. On the South of the section there is a road leading to the beauh. Witness never applied to the Board to have the road improved. Had instituted the present proceedings of her own free will. Had made no arrangement with anyone about the payment-of costs. There was a floodgate over the creek lower down about twelve years ago. Believed it was washed away. About four years ago there was another gate erected higher up than the present one. This was also washed away. Believed that she was consulted by the Road Board about the erection of the latter gate. As far as she could judge, the gate recently erected would keep the water off defendant's land and throw it on to hers. John Wilson stated that he contracted with Messrs Fear, Gibbs, Petrie, Pateman, and Orchard to erect the flood gate on Mrs Ivens' land. Pate man showed witness where the gate was to be put down, and Orchard superintended the work. (Witness specified the timber, which showed the structure to be a substantial affair.) The structure extended ten feet on to the banks of the creek. It would cost not less than £25 to have it removed. Crossexamined : The object of the gate is to keep the salt-water from running up the creek. Plaintiff's land was fairly good for grazing purposes. A high tide would rise to the top of the bank. Saw a high tide while he was working at the gate, but it did not flood the land below. The land above would be improved by the flood-gate. The hisjh tides never overflowed Mrs Ivens' land before the flood-gate was put in. The old gate was washed away because ib waß not properly erected. R. Leggett stated that he owned property adjoining plaintiff's. With the new flood-gate in its present position, an extremely high tide or a flood in the Ashley would submerge the town part of Mrs Ivens' land. If the land were his, he would not have allowed a flood-gate to be put in at the spot. If it was allowed to remain, it would decrease the value of the land. For the defence R. Pateman, one of the defendants, stated that he had land in the neighbourhood of Mrs Ivens. The first flood gate was put in at the mouth of the creek by Mr Lovegrove. This gate was rendered useless. Subsequent to this the Beach road was in an impassable condition, through flood water from the creek. One party petitioned the Board to have the road raised; and witness and others asked for a flood gate. The Board, with plaintiff's consent, put up a flood gate. This was about five years ago. It was washed away, some time afterwards, and the present gate was put in as a substitute. Before the gate was erected, the tidal water flooded Mrs Ivens' property, and damaged it so that no English grass would grow.. The gate would greatly benefit plaintiff, as now only an extraordinarily high, fclood would flow over her land. Since the gate had been pub in, the road was much improved, and was at all times- fib for traffic. Witness was not a party to the erection of the first floodgate. M'Kenzie, plaintiff's tenant, made no objection to the material for the gate being carted over the property. S. Gibbs* R. Fear, I. and W. Orchard, and R. Betiie also gave evidence, all agreeing that the floodgate greatly benefited plaintiff and other landowners in the vicinity. A. Tempter, Clerk to the Road Board, produced minutes showing that the Board agreed to erect the floodgate constructed about five years ago on the landowners subscribing towards it. The Board voted ■£$©• and the landowners subscribed £A& towards the cost. After learned counsel had addressed the Bench, his Worship said that he waa satisfied that judgment must be for the plaintiff. The evidence showed the Eoad Board had not been the prime movers in the erection of the gate five years ago, but simply assisted a private enterprise. The Board did not claim to have any Bight over the creek. The Bench considered that plaintiff's action, was peculiar^— a dog-in-the-mangeo sort of business, seaing that the weight ci evidence proved tiiat the flood-gate benefited her, and that defendants were actuated by good in erecting it. Mr Spackoan having intimated his intention to appeal, judgment was given for £10 to beajjthe appeal. ___________________