RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7536, 12 August 1903, Page 3

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

A Wairarapa Case,

A question of riparian rights was involved in a Wairarapa case which came before Mr Justice Cooper in the Wellington Supremo Court yesterday. Tho plaintiffs were Arthur P. and Edward M. D. Whatman, of Taueru, near Masterton, farmers, and they sought an injunction against James and Josiah Udy, farmers at the same place, and Martha Osborne, of Waihakeke, and also claimed £500 damages. Mr Skerret, with Mr Pownall, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Treadwell for defendants.

The action waß one brought by riparian proprietors claiming damages and an injunction for the erection of a groin in the bed of the Waiohine River, which deflected the waters of the river on to the land of the plaintiffs. The defendants were the adjoining riparian owners on the other side of the river, and £500 was claimed against'them. The'stream was a difficult one to manage, and it was of the utmost importance, said Mr Skerrett, in opening, that any protection of the banks should bo preserved. Tho defendants Udy acquired their leasehold interest in their portion of the land in 1880, and at that time the river flowed right contiguous and adjacent to their land, and the surveys showed that at no time did it reach contiguous to the plaintiffs' land. There had been no erosion, and no trouble until subsequent to the erection of the groins. Protecting 'the Whatmans' property was a bank of gravel eight chains wide and nineteen chains in length, and in had proved of incalculable* va]qe to therm IJdyls land was in exactly tho reverse condition; there was no gravel, tho stream flowed right against the bank, and overflowing it in flood timo. Tbo first groin was erected by the defendants on sth Blarch, 1900, 100 ft in length, 4ft to 4ft 6in high, 4ft wide at the top, and Bft at the base. Two more groins followed, tho third, 1-Gft in length, being erected in August, 1901. By Christmas, 1901, the last groin, aided by the others, had deflocted the river alniost entirely,' or verysuhssantially, on to Whatman's side. Ody declined to remove the groins, with the" result that got all the water, while TJdy was free, qnd had tlm large deposit of gravel which hitherto ha 4 afforded protection to Whatman. Tho defendants stated that this outcome was the natural alteration in tho course of the river. Further, that plaintiff-' acquiesced in the woris-an allegation absolutely denied,

Evidence was taken at considerable Jongth.-^Po^,