Featherston Magistrate’s Court.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1774, 21 December 1885, Page 2

Featherston Magistrate’s Court.

Gbobge Habbisv Feathebston Roau Boahd. The case of Geo. Harris v the Featherston Road Board, being a claim for £IOO for laud taken for road purposes, and damage by severance, was heard at the K. M. Court, Featherston, on Thursday, the 17th inst,, before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R. M., A Geo. Reynolds, Esq., J. P, MrW. H. Travers appeared on behalf of the claimant, and Mr A. Gray, of Beard & Gray for the respondent. Mr Travers, in opening the case, said the claim was based on the value of the land taken, the value of fencing and the actual injury to which the claimant may be exposed in time of floods through stock not being able to get to high land ; and that the claimant would be content not to ask the Board to fence if the court will award a sufficient sum j and be would be prepared to prove by witnesses present that the sum asked was not excessive.

Mr George Harris, examined by Mr Travers, said he was a sheep farmer residing iu the Lower Valley. The land in question was good alluvial soil and equal to any in the Wairarapa as pastoral land. It was laid down in grass, but had not been ploughed, and was capable of carrying from five to six sheep to the acre. The land on the eastern side was much higher than on the western side. The eastern side is the only part not wholly subject to floods The block contains about 117 acres, 25 of which are not always flooded. There has been five or six feet of water nt times on the lower portion. Floods generally occur three times a year, and if the road is fenced there will be no escape for stock. In last heavy flood in September, 1884, he lost five oalves through the water rising suddenly. The land was worth £2O per acre.

In reply to Mr Travers Mr Gray said if the Board decided to fence, they would, of course, have two slip bars or gates erected. Examination continued—l run a great risk of losing stock in consequence of the sever* anoe. The road is used principally by Mr Kennedy and his family, and terminates at Mr Kennedy's section. By Mr Gray—l consider the land worth £2O an acre. I cannot say at what I returned it in my property tax paper. Mr Skeet valued it, I believe, at £5 an acre, and I was quite satisfied. There is very little high ground, in high floods, but in ordinary floods 10 acres as a retreat. There is no boggy ground ; there used to be a lagoou, but Ibis I drained to the river; at flood times the water comes up my drain. The floods come down with very little warning, and wo have floods generally when the kohai is in flower, but not this year ; have taken the cattle oil when I expected a flood. I use the land as a fattening ground. Mr L. Tullock, examined," by Mr Travers corroborated the evidence of the former witness. He valued the land at from £l6 to l £2o per acre, and considered if the road was fenced it would bo necessary to employ labour at flood times to look after the stock ; about £BO would be a fair indemnity fer extra labour incurred by the risk. Examined by Mr Gray ; The land carries generally 30 or 40 head of cattle in the summer, not so many iu the winter. He knew the land thoroughly, but couldjnot tell tbo quantity cleared ou the S. \V side, possibly about half. Cattle aod sheep were there when the river was running bank high. Had been on foot over the land when a flood was on ; floods do not often .occur without warning, and we know the seasons to expect them. It was customary with tbo neighbors to guard cattle at such times. If he could get tae land at £6O a year he would make a good profit, but if the road was fenced through he wouldn’t have it at any price. Wm Wratten, sheep farmer, examined by Mr IVavers, gave similar evidence. He had known the land f0r.20 years and it was worth from £ls to £l6 per acre. A fair rental would be from 12s to 15s per acre ; if the road were fenced it would make a difference of from £2oojto £3OO in the value, and unless a man lived on it, it would be scarcely worth having. By Mr Gray: It wouldn't make two good paddocks, as there were only about 20 acres of high ground in the lot. I only know the depth of water by marks on the tr«M. Hadn’t been on the ground lately. This closed the case for the claimant.

Mr Gray, in opening the case for th» respondent, said that in July last the Board had offered at the rate of £lO per acre for the land taken, 1 acre and some few perches, the total amount being £ll 3s 11. Tba claim was at the rate of £25 per acre, and to day the claimant's witnesses valued it at from £ls to £2O. The Chairman o£ the Board, in company with Mr John Barton and Mr H. Braithwaite, bad visited the land yesterday, all of whom could ho considered experts, and he would first call Mr Union.

Mr Barton sworn : produced a map prepared by himself from the map of the district shewing the position of the road, and the depth of water judged to be oo the land at flood time by marks on the tiers. The road would divide the section into 77 acres on the S W aide, and 4<) acres on the north side, as sealed on the map. Tne land on the cleared portion, say from one third to a half, was in good grass ; the hush was ungrasaed. The greatest depth of (loud water on the 77 acres appeared to bo about 8 IVct. The road line shewed indications of 3 feet of water at one end, 6 feet at the other, and about 8 feet in tliu centre. Titer* was high jx-u-i lon etch side of the river bank, which was a safe letreat for cattle, and they would be safe at either end of section in flood limn. Should say the value of the laud was £lO an acre for the cleared portion and LI for lbs bush ; the laud taken was woith Llfl an acre for grazing purposts ; should think the low ground in centre might the removal of cattle in times of (bind, but they would be safe on river hank.

By Mr Travers • Cattle could reach the north east side easily. IJo not consider the land would be injured by the erection of fencing. It would rather tend to carry mota stock. A large farm would certainly be improved by such a road, out one <<f 100 acres would not. Ido not consider the road injuriously affects the claimant, as there is no loss. Tim land taken will be paid for, and it i» divided into two fairly sized paddocks. Mr Braithwaite, ixamined by Mr Gray, corroborated the evidence of the former witness. I did not notice any camping ground ; my experience is that cattle should be moved when floods are expected ; I have had yeat's experience among stock and never lost a beast. I consider the Board's offer for the road quite sufficient. I think the division beneficial, ns the ground could lie belter worked and in time of flood the cattle could be more easily put in a place of safely in the upper paddock. I do not consider any damage has been done by severance. By Mr Travers ; I do not consider it - -Aimny uuiy so far as the detrimental to iu« j.... “ *“*“

maintenance of fences (which is atm an question) and the labor of opening the gate*, which is mote than counter-balanced by the property being more easily worked. Mr James Donald, examined by Mr Gray, gave similar evidence, and in reply to Mr Travers remarked that when the bush was cleared, which appeared to be now going on, the cattle could more easily reach the high ground. The fencing would increase the carrying power and give more convenience iu driving and finding the cattle together. The valuation in 1882 was about £8 j»r ame, He now considered the block worth £7OO. Mr Travers cross-examined the witness at some length as to the depth of water, and the course the cattle would probably take at flood time, and this closed the case. The Justices award was £ls for land taken, £5 for damages, and £8 3s costs. Totalj L2B Bs,