POLLUTION OF WATER.

Wairarapa Age, 13 March 1925, Page 7

POLLUTION OF WATER.

CLAIM AGAINST DAIRY CO. JUDGMENT FOB PLAINTIFFS. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice Macgregor, the case in which George MeI'.nzi.- and Thomas McKenzie proceeded against the Taartahi Dairy Company for £49 3s general damages and £2OO special damages for alleged pollution of plaintiffs’ water races, was concluded, judgment being entered for plaintiffs for a total of £5O damages, and a writ of injunction. At the hearing Mr R. McKenzie appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr H. E. Hart for defendants. When the case was resumed, George McKenzie, one of the plaintiffs, detailed the damage to his property and pollution of the stream by the discharge of whey from the factory. He stated that as the result of the pollution of the domestic water supply he had to dig a well and erect a wind mill, costing £33 and £4O for erection. The claim of £49 3s comprised £46 for the windmill and £3 3s legal expenses. He made repeated requests, but nothing of a permanent nature was done. To His Honour witness said if there was heavy rain to-morrow it would again bring the waste whey over his land.

His Honour: It is evident to me that this ;asc should have been settled between the parties and should never have come to court.

Mr Hart: We arc agreeable to settle it now, Your Honour. His Honour: Well, why don’t you agree to an injunction. Mr Hart: There are reasons why wc cannot do so.

Further evidence for plaintiffs was given by A. Anderson and Colin Campbell, farmers of Clareville, who stated that their properties adjoining Me Kenzie’s had been damaged by the whey. When the ease was resumed in the afternoon Mr Hart outlined .the defence and emphasised the fact that the water race was an artificial supply granted to the factory an 1882, under the defendant’s control, and belonging to them. Plaintiffs dio not want the water cut off as they drove their pump with it, but they wanted the defendants to supply clear water down the race. If the injunction was granted it would be injurious to both sides. The main cause of complaint was as t> the domestic water supply, but this had been put in by the plaintiffs, who were practically getting a loan of it gratis from the company, who were drawing no benefit. His Honour; Why don’t they cut it off. The only point to decide is whether the water is being polluted, and if so, to what extent. James Fisher, farmer, Chairman of Directors of the Taratahi Dairy Company, said the company always had the right to the water supply. Ever since the factory started all waste matters were poured down the water race until the plaintiffs took the property. McKenzie suggested that the waste be piped over the load and helped to make an open race to take it away over another part of his land. McKenzie later ploughed a paddock and stopped the outlet. The race overflowed and naturally caused a smell. There was no chance of the domestio supply being polluted as it was contained in a piped drain. It wire impossible for the flood water to carry whey across McKenzie's and on to Campbell’s property, as the land was graded the opposite way. His Honour: Do you suggest that previous witnesses are telling me a pack of lies? They have stated that it did flow over. Yet you suggest it is a physical impossibility. At present I must decline to believe you. His Honour to counsel: If you have not a stronger defence than this it will save a lot of time —

Mr Hart: I am calling the Dairy Inspector. His Honour: But we don’t want a lot of theory. We have the facts that plaintiffs’a land is being polluted by your company and unless you have evidence to deny those facts we are wasting time. I am not concerned with any other flood, water. Mr Camp bell stated that the water race was polluted and it has not been denied. J. R. Curie, Dairy Inspector, said ho had received no complaints until the water had been flowing down McKenzie’s property for 12 months. The pits at present at the factory were sufficient to carry all the waste and keep it off McKenzie’s. The solids from the pits had never been shifted by the flood or anything else. Witness sampled the water at McKenzie’s and found it all right. Further evidence was given by P. A. Milne, W. Fisher, C. Reid, R. McLaren, and R. Adams. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr Hart quoted cases from the law reports and stated that if the damage was not great, or if the causes had ceased, the • right of an injunction would not lie.

His Honour, in summing up, said the dispute had been going on since January, 1921. It was admitted by defendants that at times refuse had found its way on to plaintiffs’ property. Soon after they acquired the land plaintiffs complained of the pollution. No doubt the company had done its best, bur the effort had net proved a complete success. It had been stated in evidence that it was impossible effectively to dispose of the waste unless it could be got away to a larger river. Probably the granting of an injunction was the best thing that could happen to the company, so that they could make adequate provision for drainage and consequent disposal of waste matter. It probably would be an expensive matter, hut it had to be faced. He did not doubt, that plaintiffs had sustained considerable damage, and considered that £5O covering both special and general damages would adequately compensate thorn. He further suggested that the

company he given a period of months in v. l.ich to effect the imp. , cements. Oa the ion of <. unsei for plaintiffs r:x :.uuw w. s : greed upon. Judgmui -..as entered for plaintiffs

with £s<> - .sages and a writ of injunction. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale.