DRAINAGE LITIGATION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8953, 12 June 1907, Page 2

DRAINAGE LITIGATION.

OTAKIA AND '■ TAIJSRI DRAINAGE BOARDS. [Pjsk Pkkss Association.'] Oo>NJia)li\, June 12. Mr Justice Williams has given judgment .in the case which followed the .ji.idgm.Qiit awarding damages to certain larmors against tne Utaida Drainage .board on account of the injury doae to their land through, the action of the iiumd. The case eat forth the claim by the Otakia Drainage Board to make the Yx'eat Ta.ieri Drainage Board liable for hull' the ccsls ol : litigation in connection with the dam at Mcmona on the pie* that the work had been carried cut jointly by both Boards. His Honor, iv giving judgment, stated that the plainti.ll: and defendant Boards had entered into an agreement to join in the cost or carrying out^ the work of clearing out, widening, deepening and, where nticesfiary, banking the ' Stream which came from the district of the defendant Board and ran through the district of tho plaintiff Board. Certain works were carried out under the supervision of the plaintiff Board, and, in the course of carrying them out, the dam within the district of . the plaintiff Board wae raised several inches j. a, flood came, and, in consequence of the level of the dam having been raised, water was backed up, and the land of several persons above was injured. These pevisons had proceeded against the plaintiff Board for compensation, and recovered damages. The plaintiff Board now sought to recover from the defendant Board half of what they had to pay in ! respect of these damages and of the : oosts attendant on the proceedings, j The defence was that the defendant i Board never c^sented to the dam be- i ing raised. Moyirihan's dam had long been a burning question between the two Boards. Plaintiffs wished to main- • tain it, and the defendants strongly ob- ' jected to its oxicsteuce. His Honor reviewed at isome length the evidence, and expressed the opinion that the defendant Board had no reason to believe that tim raising of Moynihan's dam would ioiir± any part of a scheme for improvement. His Honor continued: " I am entirely «;itisfi«d that there was no assent on the part of the defendant? to the raising of the dam, and that the members of the West Taieri Board were quite unaware that the raising of the dam was part of the schema which they had sanctioned, ft lies upon the plaintiffs, who claim contribution, to shew clearly that the particular work which caused the injurywas constructed and .maintained with the concurrence and consent of the defendants. This? the plaintiffs have failed to do. Judgment would be for the defendants/ j