DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 10, Issue 619, 16 June 1866, Page 2

DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS.

The following extracts from the District Engineer’s report to the Provincial C.ouncil will be read with interest The Court House at Turakina has been completed. It will require to be fenced off, standing, as it does, in an open paddock. Several of the windows have }■ got broken by tlie cattle. There is also required, at the entrance, a small foot-bridge, all of which will spst £3O. Both the Turakina and Rantffhkei Court House requires to be painted; and this will cost £40. 5 On the Rangitikei Ferry, a punt has be.en put; up, and approaches .made on each skle of the river, wide enough for a carriage to turn. On the East side of the river, from the Ferry towards the Coast,-tlie road has been formed for about 60 chains , which is untier contract to be gravelled, and will cost £6O. The Wanganui prison accommodation has been increased, by the addition of six cells, and constable’s room. A nine feet high galvanised corrugated iron fence has been erected round tbe yard,-which has also been divided by a similar fence. The foundation plates of the Court House, also the lower streaks of the weather-boarding, are completely decayed, and will require to be under-set. The roof and gutters require repairs, and the building painted, all which, with £35 already expended for improvements for District Court will cost £250. An Upper Ferry has been established on the Wanganui River, for the convenience of settlers North of the No. 2 Line. A sum of £SO will be required forinakingapproaches tu this Ferry. For the raising of snags from the main channel of the River Wanganui, the Bridge Committee, who jhave had the management of the funds for that purpose, have purchased a cutter of 25 tons, put in a flat bottom, and otherwise had her put in working order, for the purpose of raising snags, several of the largest of which have been raised under the superintendence of the Harbour Master. The annual cost of working this will be about £SOO.

The Government Wharf has been com" pleted under the direction of the Bridge Committee. I consider the principle of running out piers from the banks of rivers is objectionable, as in the present case, the tierß of piles on which the platform rests cause eddies and back currents, 'which deposit the silt and other alluvia in banks below, and inland of the piers, which, in time, extends upwards, to the outer end of the pier thereby rendering inniffient the depth of the water for berthing vessels. Since this pier has been run out the water has shallowed to such an extent that at low water vessels rest on the bed of the river. I consider that any future works for the extension of wharf accommodation ought to be in the manner of a breastwork, erected at such a depth of water as will float any vessel at low water that can come over the bar when the tide is full. The works ought to be carried out continuously, and. in a. line, which would give greater 1 scouring power to the river, avoid eddies and back currents, and carry the silt out to sea. I would recommend to the Government that the wharf accommoda-ionf.be continued in this manner, from the present wharf up to the sito of the bridge, as at present the wharf accommodation is quite insufficient for the shipping which frequents the river. The cost would be about £7,520, to extend over three years. The reclamation and protection of the river bank, above the Market-place, is going on steadily. This work will assist greatly in improving the navigation of the river, and ought to be carried on continuously each year until it reaches the bridge site, and. in a line with the face of the wharf below the bridge. Up to the present there is £l5O incurred. I would recommend £IOOO for this year.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Wednesday, June 13. [Before D. S. Durie, Esq., R.M., T. Harper, and J. Wilson, Esqrs., J.P.’b.] civil case. John M‘Gregor v. F. Williamson. Claim £lO. This was a claim of damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, in consequence of the defendant having; on the sth and 7th of the present month, entered upon the land of plaintiff against the will of the owner, and for having broken a certain lock and gate and removed some timber, belonging to the plaintiff in this action. Mr. Roberts for plaintiff. Mr. Ross for defendant. Plaintiff, being sworn, said— I own certain lands between the town and Mr. F. Williamson’s on No. 3 Line, passing by my land leading into and through Mr. Williamson’s. Defendant has passed through my land into No. 3 Line for years with my consent. I complained of defendant passing through a particular gate, but would allow him to pass another way, till next spring, Defendant had access to his land by No. 3 Line. Originally, I allowed him to pass by the old road, which went by my house ; the Court directing me not to close that line. 1 placed a padlock on the gate opposite Mr. Patterson’s house ; it was broken off on Monday week, but I was not there at the time. I had a bridge outside the gate taken up, to prevent traffic through; I found the timber afterwards made into a bridge again. I have sustained damage by the destruction of the fence and removal of the timber. On Monday la,st, I requested defendant to use the road past my house, till next spring. He said his land was open at the back, and he should force his May at the upper gate. Defendant used that gate formerly. No. 3 Line was not open then. I opened the upper gate during the war at the request of Captain Kells* Examined by Mr. Ross—A few chains on No. 3 Line are not yet gravelled. I am one of the Wardens. The few chains unmettaled are considered hard ground. The old road has existed for many years, and is in good condition. In winter time that road was not in use. Mr/ Broughton refused the use of the road to defendant. lafterwardsgave him and others permission to use it. Last Monday week I put a padlock on the gate. Some time back ;I did ask Mr. Shield’s and others not to go by the old road, but by the bridge. 1 To the Court —I refused defendant permission to go through the gateway, in consequence of the damage I am suffering from parties constantly leaving my gate open. D. Porter deposed—l am a surveyor. I know the, gate opposite Mr. Patterson’s. Defendant 'could easily have obtained exit from his land to No. 3 Line. The old road is the shortest from his house. To the Court —Tt is not usual for a party to have more than one road to his property. Cross examined |by Mr. Ross—lt would probably take 20 chaic.s_.to make a road from his house to No. 3 Lino. This was the case for the plaintiff. Defendant called the following witnesses : Henry Churton deposed— remember one

or two tracks lea ding from Mr. Williamson’s through Mr. McGregor’s property. These tracks had been in use for 23 or 24 years. . James Hogg, D.E., deposed—l know the track in question, which runs by Mr. M’\ McGregor’s house and crosses opposite Mr. Patterson’s gate, where Mr. McGregor has also placed a gate. The gate is on the iine of the main road, leading from it into' ■the plaintiff’s-land.. The country between Mr. Williamson’s house and the road is heavy bush, composed"for the most part of pine trees, and is swampy, to make a road through which would be a very expensive undertaking. Alexander Strachan gave evidence of this old line running from No. 3 line, which had generally been used and was a convenience. Francis Williamson, son., deposed—l occupy land on No. 3. line - adjoining Mr. McGregor’s; No. 3 line has been newly made, I have been in the habit of getting to the main road either by going round Mr. McGregor’s house or by going across the Matarawa stream (or creek.) • This stream is in the plaintiff’s land near an iron gat9 on the No. 3 line, and on it I know only one practicable ford, and that is the one by the iron gate. T have used that ford for more than 12 years in going to and from No. 3 line, and have always believed it to be a public way. On the road passing the plaintiff’s house we (passengers) have been * frequently annoyed. , Mr.. Williamson gave evidence as to the impassable nature of the bush in his land adjoining the road. On this track in question (the witness continued) we had no notice of its stoppage till Monday week. -

The defence, in plain terms, was that there was a track or road by suffrance, that had been in use for more than twenty years, running from Mr. Williamson’s house and making the* nearest cut to the main road, avoiding the heavy and almost impenetrable bush, and having a bridge or ford across a creek within a chain or less of the gate that opened to No. 3 line. The distance saved by this track was something considerable. The bench gave judgment for plaintiff in 5s damages and costs, with the understanding that the defendant should have a free and unobstructed passage past Mr. McGregor’s house for twelve months. Thursday, June 14. [Before D. S. Durie, Esq., R.M., and J. Wilson, Esq., J.P.] CIVIL CASE. Fisher v. Birchall. Claim £22 ss. This case was heard on Thursday week and adjourned in order that the parties on both sides might make up their accounts more accurately and to date. . It was sworn by the plaintiff when formerly before the Court, and not denied by the defendant, that all the books, —or :’more. properly the one book,— had been destroyed by mutual consent ; now, however, the defendant produced a book and deponed to its accuracy, while the plaintiff as solemnly averred that it was got up for the occasion and inaccurate. The Bench ultimately gave a decision for the plaintiff ss. 3d. and costs.

Friday, June 15. [Before D. S. Durie, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASES.

James Moore & Co. v. Robert Campbell.— Patea Claim £54 balance of account for several hhds of ale and porter delivered. In evidence it appeared that three hhds had been returned half full; but had been kept so long untapped as to be useless. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. George F. Gibbs v. John Gamer.—Claim £3 17s. —Judgment for £3 9s. and costs. Thomas Nathan v. Jas. Claim £6 14s 6d. Judgment for amount and costs.