Charles William Schultze set up his watermill on the Kaiwarra Stream in 1845, initially with 2 pairs of millstones, but later adding a third. He ran it through to 1869, and then let it to another miller.
New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator, Volume V, Issue 347, 5 June 1844
For sale by Private Contract, (Freehold property possessing almost the only available and decidedly the best water power in the vicinity of Wellington. SUCH part as may be agreed upon of the Kai Warra section adjoining the Water Fall, so well adapted for a flour or corn mill, possessing a shot of 18 to 20 feet — with a regular and plentiful supply of water. The valley is intersected by good roads, and Kai Warra Point commands the deepest water in the Haibour. Mr. Park, surveyor, will point out the bounds — and for further particulars, apply to Bethune and Hunter. Wellington, June 4, 1844.
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 79, 11 April 1846
We regret to hear that the flood caused by the heavy rain which fell last week has carried away the dam of Mr. Schullze's mill at Kai-wara-wara. The dam was almost complete, and it was expected that the mill would have been at work in the course of a fortnight. It is estimated that about two hundred pounds will be required to repair the damage.
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 83, 9 May 1846
C. W. SCHULTZE begs to intimate to the Settlers and Public of Wellington and Cook's Straits, that his FLOUR MILL at KAI WARA is now completed and at work, and he will be glad to receive their orders, which he will execute punctually, and at as cheap a rate as possibly can be done elsewhere.
For Grinding and Dressing, and Smutting when required, per bushel 0 1 3
For Grinding, and Smutting when required, per bushel 0 1 0
Wellington, May 9, 1846.
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 84, 16 May 1846
Mill at Kai Wara. — We were very much gratified by having an opportunity, through the kindness of its proprietor, Mr. Schultze, of inspecting the New Mill at Kai Wara, which is now complete, and in operation, and the following description of it will, we doubt not, prove interesting to our readers at a distance who have at heart the welfare of the settlement. At about a quarter of a mile from the sea shore, in the Kai Wara valley, a substantial dam has been built across the Kai Wara stream, by which a fall of thirteen feet is obtained. The mill is a neat and substantial wooden building two stories high, about 32 feet long and 20 feet wide, and is built of red pine. The frame and shaft of the water-wheel (a breast wheel), 26 feet diameter and 5 feet wide, is made of red pine, and the arms of mai and miro alternately. The diameter of the pit-wheel is 10 feet, that of the spur wheel 11 feet. The cogs of these wheels are made of rata, titoke, kohai, and manuka, the arms are made of the mai; the pillow blocks of the pit wheel, which are usually metal, are in this instance made of mairi, which it is expected from its toughness will prove a very good substitute. There is at present only one pair of stones (French burrs) at work, but a second pair will be ready in the course of another fortnight, and the machinery is capable of turning four pair, so that the grinding powers of the mill may be increased with the increase of cultivation in the settlement, while the water power at the command of Mr. Schultze is sufficient for three mills of equal size. — A very complete dressing machine and smutting machine are also attached to the mill. The whole of the machinery appears to be constructed in the most substantial manner, and reflects the greatest credit on the engineer, Mr. Glasgow, under whose able direction the works have been executed. This mill will be of great service to the settlers on the Porirua road, and we hope will have a very beneficial effect in increasing the amount of cultivation in the neighbouring districts, more especially as the new road, now in progress, will, before the next harvest, enable the settlers to carry their wheat to be ground without difficulty; and the present prices of wheat in the neighbouring colonies, the certainty of additional reinforcements of troops to this colony, and the supplies which will be required, in the new settlement at Otakou, appear to hold out to the settlers the prospect of remunerating prices for their produce. We feel great pleasure in recording the opening of this, the fourth mill which has been erected in this district. It is a satisfactory proof (among others) of the energy and enterprise of the settlers, and an unerring test of the gradual progress of cultivation in the neighbourhood of Port Nicholson, in spite of the unsettled state of the land claims, and a host of other impediments. This addition to the number of mills in Port Nicholson will also have a useful influence on the coasting trade, as it will be an inducement to the natives at Otaki and the neighbouring districts, and on the East Coast, to send their wheat to Port Nicholson to be ground, and encourage them to extend their cultivations. We have little doubt Mr. Schultze will find his mill as profitable to himself, as it is likely to prove useful to the settlement.
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 144, 16 December 1846
C. W. SCHULTZE begs leave to inform his Friends and the Public, that he has reduced his charges for Grinding, &c, at the Mill at Kai Warra, viz.,
Grinding, in parcels of 50 Bushels, or over, 6d. per Bushel.
Grinding, under 50 Bushels, 9d. do.
Dressing, 3d. do.
Smutting, 3d. do.
December 16, 1846.
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 308, 12 July 1848
THE UNDERSIGNED being about to leare the Colony for a time, requests that all accounts due to or by him may be settled on or before the v J9th n instant. The business of the Mill at Kai Warra will be conducted on the same terms as heretofore. C. W. SCHULTZE. Kai Warra, 11th July, 1848.
Wellington Independent, Volume VI, Issue 485, 5 June 1850
WANTED. AN ACTIVE LAD for the Kai Warra Flour Mill. Apply to C. W. SCHULTZE, Murphy Street. Wellington, May 14, 1850.
Wellington Independent, Volume VI, Issue 528, 2 November 1850
C. W. SCHULTZE will give the highest Cash Price for Wheat, at his Mill, Kai Warra. October 22, 1850.
Wellington Independent, Volume VII, Issue 572, 5 April 1851
Kai Warra Mill. FIRST QUALITY FLOUR can be had at the above MILL at 16s. per 100lb. cash; if booked, 1s. additional. Sharps 8s. Bran 5s.The ad was later adjusted to have prices of 15s for flour, and 8s for sharps.
C. W. SCHULTZE. Wellington, April 2, 1851.
Wellington Independent, Volume VII, Issue 663, 18 February 1852
Miller Wanted.
A MILLER who thoroughly understands his business, may hear of employment, and good wages, by applying to C. W. SCHULTZE, Kai Warra Mill, or at Thorndon Flat. February 10. 1852
Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XIV, Issue 27, 30 June 1855
On Saturday morning, owing to the heavy and continued rain during the previous night, all the streams and watercourses in the town and its neighbourhood were considerably swollen, causing much inconvenience and damage in several localities. At Kaiwarra the body of water was so great that it burst through the dam at Mr. Schultze's mill.
Wellington Independent, Volume XV, Issue 1410, 2 March 1860
KAI WARRA MILL.
C. W. SCHULTZE, having nearly completed his alterations at the Kai Warra Mill, will be able to receive Grist after the 20th March, for which he will charge at the following rate:-
Grinding, Dressing, and Cleaning . . 1s. per bush.
Wheat carted from any of the Wharves, and returned included in the above rate.
Calico Bags charged 6d. each
Flour 26s. to 27s. per 100 lbs.
Sharps 8s. to 9s.
Bran 1s to 1s. 3d. per bush.
March 2nd, 18G0.
Wellington Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1711, 28 March 1862
C. W. SCHULTZE begs to acquaint his friends and the public in general that he has on hand, and to arrive :— Flour of the best quality at reasonable prices Sharps do. do. Bran do. do. Gristing as usual done at the Mill. Kai Warra Wheat of well selected samples, suitable for Millers Ditto for feeding pigs and poultry Oats, Potatoes, Black and White Tartarian Beans for Horse feed Peas, Grey, and ditto for Pig feeding In Unlimited supply.
C. W. SCHULTZE is a PURCHASER for CASH of all sorts of GRAIN.
Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1768, 18 September 1862
TO STATION OWNERS AND OTHERS.
C. W. SCHULTZE, of Kai Warra, Flour Mill, Wellington, can now supply station owners and others, with Flour of first quality, prepared from kiln dried Wheat, guaranteed to keep a sufficient length of time. Harbour Street, Lambton Quay, Sept. 17, 1862
A storm in 1865 caused flooding and damage to the mill Evening Post, Issue 84, 17 May 1865
Yesterday evening a storm of unusual violence burst over Wellington; thunder, lightning, hail, and rain, accompanied a strong nor'-wester — all combining to give the night a most appalling character— even the security and shelter of a house could not divest the warring elements of last night's terrors. The rain poured down in a continuous deluge, while at short intervals the lightning illuminated the sky, quickly followed by crashing peals of heaven's artillery—the sudden gusts of wind making one feel doubtful of the stability of our wooden fabrics— a gentle oscillatory movement being in many habitations quite perceptible. Today the storm is scarcely abated— all outdoor work is impracticable, and in some instances the shutters could not be removed from the shop fronts without danger of smashing in the glass work. Much damage has been done to property a few miles from town, although within the precincts of the city there is little cause of complaint. We understand Mr. Schultze has been a sufferer —his mill-dam, flood-gate, and mill-bridges being carried away; also Mr. Hurst's curing establishment, his dwelling-house fortunately sustaining no injury.Wellington Independent, Volume XX, Issue 2207, 18 May 1865
THE LATE GALE.Press, Volume VII, Issue 800, 23 May 1865
Few people will foi-get the night of Tuesday last. During the day, the wind and rain prognosticated a stormy night, but no one anticipated the hurricane that swept over the harbor, accompanied as it was by a deluge of hail and rain. ... At Kai Warra Warra he found that the bridge had been completely washed away, and, on making enquires, heard that shortly before midnight the stream, which up till then had been gradually increasing in size, came down in a perfect torrent, bringing with it huge logs of trees, snags, and a cart, the property of Mr Schultze. ... If the damage occasioned by the storm had stopped here it would have been well; but we regret to say that the field of devastation has been far wider, and that much valuable property belonging to private individuals has been distroyed. Perhaps of these the most considerable sufferer has been Mr Schultze. Up till midnight the men engaged at his mill were enabled with an iron pole to steer the huge logs of wood which were being borne down by the stream through the escape, but at length Hurley's old dam gave way, and a perfect avalanche rushed through the gully, breaking down every thing in its way and carrying with it a portion of Mr Schultze's dam. The wheel, we are glad to say, is uninjured, but the mill itself was flooded to a depth of three feet, destroying many hundred bags of wheat and flour.
The neighbourhood of Kai-wara-wara suffered severely. A huge piece of rock became detached from the hill at the back of the toll-bar, and, upon falling, it buried the gate and blocked up the road. A little further along, the Kai-wara-wara bridge was swept away, and was yesterday morning discovered lying at the opposite side of the bay in the vicinity of the public baths. A little way up the stream in question stands Mr. C. W. Schultze's flour mill, and we regret to learn that very severe damage has been done to the property. The tremendous body of water that swept through the narrow gully in which the mill is situated is described as being something awful, and the exertions of a number of men were unavailing in attempting to save the property from destruction. The dam ultimately burst, and with the rush of water went portions of the mill, and the building was shaken to its foundation, and a large quantity of flour and wheat on the lower floor was damaged. Altogether Mr. Schultze must be a very severe sufferer.Repairs were made, to restore the mill to work again Evening Post, Issue 219, 24 November 1865
THE Undersigned, having completed the repairs of the Kai Warra Mill Dam, has now on Sale Flour Bran Sharps Horsefeed Oats Beans Peas W. SCHULTZE, Willis street.
The question of a town water supply came up, and Shultze's water supply was a clear candidate, so he wrote to the Town Board offereing to lease them the mill dam Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2519, 16 May 1867
Wellington, 4th May, 1867. To the Chairman of the Town Board.
Sir,— Having to-day seen a paragraph in the Independent that the matter of a Water Supply for the town had been under discussion at a meeting of Commissioners on the 3rd inst., I beg leave to submit the following for your information :— 1st. That the Kai-warra mill dam, as it is at present, will supply water to any part of the town within a height of about thirty feet above the height of high water mark. 2nd. That the surface area of the dam is from two and a-half to three acres. 3rd. That a sufficient quantity of water of the best quality can be obtained and stored for the supply of the whole town as well as for flushing drains and fire hydrants. 4th. That the water could easily be made to supply wants at a greater height than thirty feet above high water mark at a small additional expanse. 5th. That the dam at Kai-warra was about a year ago re-constructed in a most substantial manner, at an expense of over £2,500. 6th. That none of the natural drainage into the Kai-warra stream can be intercepted and diverted at any point above the dam without compensation being made. 7th. That I am willing to treat with the Commissioners for a lease of the dam and such land as may be required for the works. I hope that my writing to you on this subject will not be deemed intrusive. I am, &c, C. W. Schultze.
The mill was put up to be let Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2618, 4 January 1868
TO LET. THE FLOUR MILL at Kaiwara, Wellington, driven by a fine stream of water with large dam; contains three pairs of four feet French Burr stones; two dressing machines, smutting machine, elevators, sack tackle, and large sinas; also, a kiln capable of drying 250 bushels of wheat per day. The whole is in complete working order, and presents a fine opportunity of carrying on a business, established for the last twenty-three years, with success. Apply to CHAS. W. SCHULTZE. January 3, 1868.Advertisments continued for the next few years in various forms Evening Post, Volume IV, Issue 211, 16 October 1868
TO LET.Evening Post, Volume VI, Issue 251, 5 December 1870
KAI WARRA MILL.
Store and Office, Harbour-street.
House, corner of Roxburgh and Majoribanks -streets.
Apply to C. W. SCHULTZE, Hobson-street.
TO LET, for a term of years, the mill at Kaiwara, fitted complete as a Flour Mill, and well adapted for either a woollen or paper mill, or any purpose employing about 20 horse water power. Apply to C. W. SCHULTZE.
In the 1870's when the Wellington Corporation eventually diverted water away from the mill for the city supply, Schultze took them to court for damages.
New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4778, 15 July 1876
SUPREME COURT.CIVIL SITTINGS. C. W. SCHULTZE V. CORPORATION OF WELLINGTON. The claim was for £5000, for damages arising out of obstruction and diversion of the Kaiwarra and Porirua streams from the plaintiffs land, upon which was situated a mill worked by the water from the said stream.
The following gentlemen were empanelled as a special jury: - Messrs. C. C. Graham, T. Mason, T. K. Macdonald, B. M. Clifford, G. M. E. Tolhurst, T. C. Binna, J. A. Allen, J. Laing, J. McDowell, J. F. E. Wright, J. Watts, and H. Gill. Mr. Mason was chosen foreman.
Messrs. Brandon and Chapman appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Ollivier (of Travers and Ollivier), for defendants.
The facts of the case as set out in the declaration and stated by Mr. Chapman were as follows;-Plaintiff alleged that he was possessed of a certain piece of land in the province of Wellington, and was entitled to the flow of a stream to and through the said land, and that the defendants obstructed and diverted the water of the stream watercourse from the land of the plaintiff; and the plaintiff further asserted that he was possessed of a mill situated on the land aforesaid, and he was entitled to a flow of the stream, working the same, and the defendants, by erecting a dam across the stream, had diverted the water from the mill, whereby the plaintiff suffered great damage. The plaintiff admitted that the Corporation were entitled, by the Wellington Waterworks Act, 1871, to divert the water, but averred that by the said Act they were required to make compensation to the plaintiff for so doing, and that by the same Act he was entitled to claim compensation for the injury done to his premises by such diversion. The defendants denied all the material allegations in the declaration contained, and in defence stated that no claim in writing for compensation for the alleged money in the declaration mentioned was made by the plaintiff within six calendar months of the time when the alleged claim arose, and that the action was not commenced within six calendar months after the accrual of the alleged cause of action. The issues were as follows;-!. Was the plaintiff possessed of a certain piece of land in the province of Wellington, and entitled to a flow of a stream to and through the same? 2. Did the defendants obstruct and divert the water of the said stream? 3. Was the plaintiff possessed of a mill in the said province? 4. Was the plaintiff entitled by reason thereof to the flow of a stream of water working the said mill? 5. Did the defendants erect a dam across the said stream? 6. Did the defendants thereby divert the water from plaintiff’s mill? 7. Was the plaintiff at the time of the alleged wrong mentioned residing, and did he continue from thenceforth until the commencement of this action to reside, within the province of Wellington? 8. Was any claim for compensation for the alleged wrong made by plaintiff to defendants within six months from the time when the claim arose? 9. Has the plaintiff suffered any damage from the diversion of the water, and if so, to what amount?
Mr. Brandon, in opening the case, said the Corporation were by an Act of the General Assembly passed in 1871 given powers, for the purpose of supplying the city, to take water from certain streams and construct certain works within districts enumerated in the Act, and the plaintiff had been injuriously affected by the Corporation having taken advantage of the powers vested in them, by diverting water from the land mentioned in the declaration. He mentioned the Act of 1871, because the defendants had pleaded in one plea that plaintiff did not make a claim within six months from the time the grievance arose. He thought, however, that he should be able to show that the defendants had not interfered with the benefit derived by the plaintiff from the stream until within six months, the period prescribed by the Acts. He then proceeded to detail the facts of the case, prior to calling evidence.
Mr. Ollivier admitted plaintiff’s title to the land, in order to save the trouble of proving; and Mr. Brandon admitted that defendants were authorised to divert water from the stream under authority of the Wellington Waterworks Act.
Mr. Brandon having read several clauses of the Waterworks Act, referring to compensations, &c., described the nature of the correspondence which had passed between the parties to the present action, the letters being placed in evidence. Two letters were sent by plaintiff’s solicitors to the solicitors of defendants, and a reply to the last of these was to the effect that the Corporation were unaware of the nature of the claim plaintiff had upon them. Then Mr. Brandon sent in a specific claim of £5000 damages for obstruction of the water of the Kaiwarra stream. The following evidence was then taken :-
Charles Wm. Schultze sworn, deposed : I am a merchant, formerly a miller. I am the owner of the land mentioned in the declaration in this action. I have the fee simple of it. I have been in the possession of it from 1845 up to the present time. I erected a flour mill there, I commenced to work the mill (driven by water) from the commencement of May, 1845. The stream which drove the mill is known as the Kaiwarra stream. I worked it from the year 1845 up to the end of 1869. The mill is capable of driving three pair of flouring Stones of 4ft. each. (Witness described the machinery). During the winter we had a good supply of water, and could work three pair of stones from sixteen to twenty hours. In the spring and autumn we could drive two pair of stones for twelve hours, and in the summer time two pair of stones for eight hours. The usual work of a pair of these stones was six bushels per hour, and we could work up to fifty thousand bushels in the year. The manufacturing profit would be 9d. per bushel, that is, the net profit on the manufacture was 9d. per bushel. While I was working the mill my average profits were £1600 per year. I was endeavoring to sell the mill, but failed to find a purchaser in consequence of a report having got about that the Corporation were going to take the water. I put a man (Mr. Foley) in charge from 1869 to work the mill as a grist mill. I could have extended my mill, but an extension would have been unwise, as the water was short in the summer time.
By the Chief Justice : The obstruction has had this effect, that frequently there would be no water running down to my dam.
By Mr. Brandon: if the whole of the water from the upper part of the stream above the dam were taken away the effect upon the mill would be to reduce the working power one third. I could not under such circumstances work my mill during the summer months at all. In the spring and autumn months the work would have to be stopped two days to get one day’s work. The mill is of 16 horse-power, and the water taken away by the Corporation would reduce it 4 horse-power, working continuously; but the reduction would be actually more, inasmuch as the mill would not under the circumstances I have mentioned work continuously during the twenty-four hours.
Witness was then examined by the Chief Justice as to the extent of damage he considered had been done to his mill, and after a considerable time (for the witness was defective in the matter of hearing), it was elicited that he valued the property and ground at £8500, although the damages were set down as £5000.
By Mr. Ollivier: In 1845 the Kaiwarra country wore a different aspect from what it does now. The hillsides were thickly wooded, and there was plenty of water in the stream. At first I started with two pair of millstones; I put up the third pair in 1845. This increase of machinery was part of the additional expenditure of £1500. The water was sufficiently plentiful to induce this increase. The works done by the Corporation sent a quantity of stuff into the basin, but subsequent to that the goldminers working up there had caused mud to run into the basin. After Mr. Foley died I lent my building to Messrs. Brogden as a barrack for immigrants, and at the present time it is occupied by Mr. Hirst as a storeroom in connection with his tannery. In 1869 the vegetation had been cleared from the surrounding hills, but the water remained about the same. It is not true that at the time of my retiring it was a notorious fact that the building was in a state of decay. About ten days before the 5th of June was the first time I perceived the diversion of the water.
John Glasgow (examined by Mr. Chapman), deposed : I am a millwright, living in Turakina. I know the mill mentioned in the declaration. I was engaged in the erection of it, and was employed in it up to 1868. In the winter we could work three pair of stones per day. The capacity of the mill was equal to the strength of the stream in the winter, so that there would have been no advantage in increasing the size of the mill. (Here witness corroborated evidence of Mr. Schultze re the working power of the mill.) The charge for grinding was 9d. per bushel, the expenditure having to come out of that. The actual profit therefore would be the difference between the expenses and the 9d. For grist work 1s. 3d. was charged. I have seen the stream recently; the water has decreased. The effect of diverting the water from the stream is to make the mill to a great extent useless. It is requisite to have a certain staff of men to work the mill, and it would be inconvenient to work with less, even though the power of the mill should be reduced. Hence the reduction of the power one-third would diminish the value of the mill more than one-third. It would be useless to work the mill in summer.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ollivier : I have not of late critically examined the building. I only noticed the stream, that there was not quite so much water as there used to be. As far as I could understand, the mill paid as well in 1868 as it had done previously. When I left the mill was in good order. I left in 1865, just prior to which date the new dam was constructed, costing £1500. The old dam was carried away by a heavy flood caused by the operations of a saw-mill on the bank of the same stream. The third pair of stones were put up about ten years after the mill was started. Given one-third less water, I do not think the mill would be worked as profitably with two pair of millstones as it originally was. In 1868 Mr. Schultze offered to lease me the mill for £300 or £400, but I desired a country life, and declined.
Re-examined by Mr. Chapman; In the offer made by Mr. Schultze as to leasing the mill allowance was made for long service.
Charles O'Neill, civil engineer, deposed that he visited the defendant’s dam. Had measured the stream on November 19, 1875. It was running at the rate of 945,000 gallons in the 24 hours, and the dam was overflowing at the rate of 108,000 gallons.
Counsel was continuing to examine the witness, when he was interrupted by the Chief Justice, who pointed out that the evidence could have no weight, as it referred to a state of things subsequent to the period at which the complaint was laid; and Mr. O’Neill was therefore not subjected to further questioning.
J. D. Cruickshank deposed that he was a millwright at the Hutt. Knew the plaintiff. Should consider the abstraction of a quantity of water would diminish the profit to a greater ratio than the mere diminution of power. Did not think the mill could be worked with a profit if a considerable portion of the water were taken away.
By Mr. Ollivier : I have been engaged in the erection of mill machinery, but have never been engaged in a flour mill in the preparation of flour. My own is a timber mill. I visited Mr. Schultze’s mill lately, but made no particular observations whilst there, having simply walked through the building.
By Mr. Chapman : I noticed a diminution of water in the Kaiwarra stream.
By Mr. Ollivier : I cannot say in what proportions. It was not my business to specially investigate the matter.
This concluded plaintiff’s case.
Mr. Ollivier applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations set out in his declaration, and he had also failed to prove that proceedings had been taken within the time fixed by the statute. Clause 50 of the Act provided that the action must be brought within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.
The Chief Justice said he could not give a nonsuit on those grounds, which could only be raised by plea. If the learned counsel’s law were right, he (the Chief Justice) could direct the jury to return a verdict for defendant, but he did not see how he could give a nonsuit.
Mr. Ollivier (stating that he did not intend to call any witnesses) then addressed himself to the jury. The plaintiff had told them that he had for many years been in possession of a flour mill on the banks of what was once known as the Kaiwarra river, but which of late years had been more modestly referred to as the Kaiwarra stream. He had told them what the mill had originally cost in the year 1845, and the improvements since then effected, and also that he was making large profits from it. But after the year 1869 it appeared that the mill had not been used for the purpose for which it was erected. Foley did not appear to have done much with it, for nothing had been heard of his operations, and it seems that he died shortly after his master retired from business. Mr. Ollivier followed up the history of the mill as told in evidence, his after remarks going to assert that the property was not of the value estimated by the plaintiff, that it had not been used for the purpose of a flour mill for a considerable time before the diversion of the water took place, and that it was not by any means in a good state of repair. All of which matters he asked the jury to take into consideration. But he submitted that the case was not one which should come to the jury at all.
In reply to the Chief Justice, Mr. Ollivier said his argument was that, inasmuch as the act of the Corporation was an act done under the authority of an existing law therefore no action could lie; but he included the other point, that the action had not been taken within the prescribed time.
A long argument followed, and the point was discussed as to whether, in the case of damages being given for loss sustained up to the time of the complaint, plaintiff would be entitled to bring another action for damages sustained since that date, the obstructions and diversions being continuous. Ultimately it was decided to leave the assessment of damages to the jury, and discuss the law subsequently.
Mr. Brandon then addressed the jury, dilating upon the injury to defendant’s property caused by the obstruction, and submitting that he was entitled to substantial damages.
The Chief Justice directed the jury on the points of the case requiring their consideration.
The jury retired, and having been absent for about three-quarters of an hour, returned and recorded their verdict as follows : They found that the plaintiff was entitled to £5 damages for the time between June, 1874, and March, 1875; and £600 for all the damage sustained prospective or otherwise.
The Court then adjourned.
Without an adequate water supply, the mill was no longer viable, and the machinery was offered for sale Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 73, 30 June 1877
FLOUR MILL FOR SALE
The Machinery, Gearing, &c, of the Waiwarra Flour Mill. Moderate terms. For particulars, apply to C. W. SCHULTZE, Hobson Street, Wellington.
Meanwhile, the court process was not complete New Zealand Mail, Issue 302, 17 November 1877
The Appeal Court has been sitting all the week; but there has been no case of public interest, unless, indeed, that of Schultze the Corporation of Wellington may be considered so. This action was brought more than a year ago by Mr. Schultze against the Corporation for damages for diverting the water from his flour mill by damming up the Kaiwarra Creek. The jury awarded him £600, but he was deprived of the benefit of the verdict on the ground that he ought to have proceeded under the Land Consolidation Act. The matter is not settled yet, and we shall hear more of it at a future day.New Zealand Mail, Issue 302, 17 November 1877
SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. Saturday, November 10. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond.)
THE CORPORATION OP WELLINGTON V. SCHULTZE. This was an argument on a rule nisi obtained in this case to restrain the defendant from proceeding in an action against the Corporation of Wellington. Mr. Travers appeared in support of the rule, and Mr. Barton to show cause against it. The facts of the case are these :—Mr. Schultze, the owner of a flour mill at Kaiwarra, brought an action against the Corporation of Wellington for alleged damages sustained by the diversion of water caused by the damming up the Kaiwarra Creek. The case was tried in July, 1876, and the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Schultze, with £600 damages. He was, however, deprived of the benefit of the verdict which he had obtained by the judgment of the Supreme Court, on the ground that he should have gone, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, to arbitration, or before a jury to assess damages. Having lost the action, he now gives the proper notices to go under the above Act. Mr. Travers, for the Corporation, now applies for an injunction to restrain Mr. Schultze proceeding, on the ground that the notices were too late. The Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, reserved judgment.
Monday, November 12. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond.)
THE CORPORATION OF WELLINGTON V. SCHULTZE. In this case, which was argued on Saturday last, on a rule nisi obtained to restrain the defendant from proceeding further in his action against the Corporation, the Chief Justice now pronounced the judgment of the Court, refusing to grant an injunction, and discharging the rule. Mr. Justice Richmond observed that the legal points raised during the argument could be again urged when it was sought to enforce the award of the arbitrators in the case.
Whilst the case was still not settled, Mr Schultze died suddenly New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5597, 7 March 1879
The pond formed by the late Mr. Schultze for the purposes of his mill at Kaiwarra has long been filled up with such detritus, and affords an illustration of the process which must inevitably take place in the reservoir.Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4250, 13 March 1879
March 8, 1879. Since I last wrote you we have lost, by a very sudden death from heart disease, another old Wellington settler, Mr C. W. Schultze, who had a flour mill for a long time at Kaiwarra, but who had for some years past been out of business. He was a kindly, genial man, who was always ready to assist in any enterprise likely to benefit the place. He was chairman of, and a large shareholder in, the Tramway Company.
Evening Post, Volume XIX, Issue 32, 10 February 1880
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1880.As in many court cases, neither side was a winner - those who come out ahead were the lawyers New Zealand Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 6123, 17 November 1880
THE CASE OF SCHULTZE V. THE CORPORATION.
The case of Schultze against the Corporation of Wellington, which has recently been decided in the Supreme Court, deserves something more than a passing notice, looking both to the circumstances involved in it and to the fact that the decision in question was one of considerable importance to the city. The late Mr. Schultze was, at the time when the Wellington Waterworks Act was before the Legislature, the owner of a flour mill at Kaiwarra, which had for many years been worked by means of the water of the Kaiwarra stream, and he, fearing that the abstraction of the water proposed to be taken under the powers of the Act would seriously affect the value of his mill, strenuously opposed the bills passing into law. The Legislature, however, looking at the matter in the ordinary light in such cases, disregarded Mr. Schultze's opposition, leaving him to his claim for compensation under the Act, in respect of any injury he might sustain. As soon as possible after the Act had passed, the Corporation proceeded to carry out the works necessary for diverting the waters of one of the tributaries of the Kaiwarra, and for that purpose constructed a dam across the stream, the effect of which was to intercept and divert into the distributing basin at Polhill's Gully the whole of the ordinary flow of the stream and part of the storm waters. But it would appear that a small quantity of water still passed over this dam during the four winter months, and that a good deal of storm water during heavy rains also found its way down the river. During all this time, however, Mr. Schultze had ceased to use his flour mill having given up the business several years before any of the waters in question had been diverted by the Corporation. We believe, indeed, that at the time the Act was passed the mill building was being used by the Messrs. Brockden as an immigration depot; but Mr. Schultze naturally set up a claim for compensation by reason of the diversion of the water of the stream, and looking upon the Corporate funds as fair game in such a case he had the conscience to ask £5000 for the alleged injury. This claim was, of course, scouted by the Corporation, who were nevertheless quite willing to pay a reasonable sum, but Mr. Schultze could not be brought to lessen his demand, and ulterior proceedings were consequently taken. Mr. Schultze, however, or his legal advisers, were of opinion that, as the property injured was outside the district defined by the Act, they were not bound or even entitled to proceed under the compensation clauses contained in it, and accordingly brought an action against the Corporation, treating the acts done as wrongful acts, and claiming £5000 for damages. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded £600, but the Corporation, having been advised by the City Solicitor that Mr. Schultze could not hold his verdict if opposed, instructed him to proceed to set it aside, which was done after due legal argument. Mr. Schultze then found himself in an awkward predicament — an action at law would not lie, and his right to compensation was barred by the Act, one of the provisions of which required that all claims for compensation must be made in the case of residents within the province within six months after the right to compensation had arisen, and declared that no claim should be allowed if not made within that time. We understand that the City Solicitor's reason for advising the Council to upset the finding of the jury was, that this finding would not finally conclude Mr. Schultze's claims, and that he might bring further actions arising out of the same cause. Whether the City Solicitor were right or not in this we are unable to judge, but we are informed that the Council, notwithstanding the verdict had been set aside, offered to pay Mr. Schultze the £600 if he would release them from all further chums. But Mr. Schultze refused this offer, being, as we learn, utterly indignant at the small amount of the verdict, and preferring a grievance to such a pittance as £600. Here the matter rested until the Corporation had erected the new dam, which effectually intercepted all the water of the stream above it, including the storm water and, of course, also the small residuum which, during the winter months, had previously passed the small dam. Mr. Schultze was advised by Mr. Barton that this gave him a chance of retrieving his lost position as to compensation, and accordingly a formal claim was, on the 18th July, sent in for £S000 as damages. But this claim, instead of being confined to the damage, if any, resulting from the diversion of the residuum of water not taken by means of the old dam, extended in terms to all that had previously been done. Mr. Schultze appointed Mr. J. R. Davies, C.E., as his arbitrator, and as the Council declined to appoint a separate arbitrator for themselves, that gentleman became sole referee. The Council appeared under protest, but tendered evidence to which we will shortly refer, in the teeth of which, however, Mr. Davies awarded Mr. Schultze the whole amount of his claim, and even stated that that sum was less than the damage Mr. Schultze had actually sustained. This astounding award took everyone who knew anything of the facts by surprise, and if intended to apply solely to the fresh damage consequent upon the erecting of the new dam, it fully justified the comments of the learned judges by whom the matter was lately considered. In order to meet the case intended to be made by Mr. Schultze in support of his claim before the arbitrator, the Council had caused the entire area of the catchwater basin of the Kaiwarra stream to be surveyed, and it was found that that area bore to the catchwater area above the new dam the proportion of about 8 to 1. They also had the waters of the stream at the point of its entry into the reservoir formed by the new dam on the one hand, and at the by-wash at Mr. Schultze's mill on the other, carefully measured and compared, and they found that the total quantity intercepted by their works bore to the quantity still passing Mr. Schultze's mill, and therefore available for working it, the proportion of 1 to 12, or, in other words, the quantity of water intercepted by the works was one-thirteenth of the whole waters of the Kaiwarra stream, measured at the mill dam. Still it will be remembered that Mr. Davies was by law limited, in dealing with the question of damage, to the small proportion of the whole water which was newly intercepted by the new dam, and which was had passed the original dam during the four winter months. This, as may be conceived, was but a mere fraction of the water intercepted for the purposes of the waterworks. Mr. DAVIES' attention was, as we understand, carefully drawn to this fact by the solicitor for the Corporation, and yet we find Him awarding to Mr. Schultze, in respect of this mere trickle of water, the astduhding sum of £5000! It is charitable, however, to assume that Mr. Davies awarded in respect of the whole of the water abstracted by the Corporation, and not merely for this fractional part — an assumption borne out by the language of his award; but, even then, the award appears to have been monstrous. The mill was a 12-horse power mill, when worked by the full ordinary supply of the stream, but it was necessary in summer, at all events, to dam the water for several hours, in order to work up to that power, for part of each day. The proportion of power abstracted by the Corporation was less than one horse, if we calculate this by the proportion which the water abstracted bore to the whole waters of the stream; and for this Mr. Davies actually awarded £5000. Whether the City Solicitor were wise in advising the Corporation not to appoint an arbitrator on their behalf, thus leaving the matter to Mr. Davies alone, does not affect the question of the propriety of Mr. Davies' award. However, there was the award, and the Council had to make the best of it. They were advised by their solicitor that it was bad in law, and thereupon instructed him to resist any action founded Upon it. The result is known, and we cannot bnt congratulate the ratepayers at their escape from a most unjustifiable claim. There is no doubt, however, that Mr. Schultze was entitled to some compensation for the loss of the water abstracted for the use of the city, and had he made a demand in any sense proportionate to the actual injury it would have been the duty of the Corporation to meet it, and the Corporation would in such a case, long ere this, have settled it; but his demand from first to last was unreasonable, and on this ground only every effort on the part of the Council to effect a satisfactory settlement failed. The history of this case is instructive in many ways, and affords a salutary lesson to those who look upon the funds of the public as fair game. At all events, we may congratulate the Corporation upon having satisfactorily disposed of a very awkward affair.
WHAT OUR RATES GO IN.[painting] [painting] [photo] [painting]
TO THE EDITOR Off THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir,—I was rather surprised to see by the reports lately published in the papers that our city lawyer had been paid for advice, &c., over £832.
Startling as this information must necessarily be to those concerned, I think the ratepayers will be a little bit more surprised to learn that a further sum of £400, or more, has been paid to the same gentleman since the last Corporation accounts wore published. For what?
I remember, some time ago, when our City Solicitor was asked about the case Schultzs v. the Corporation (I think Mrs Schultze had offered to accept £1000 in full, of all demands) that the City Solicitor advised the Council not to pay it, because Mrs. Schultze had no claim—in fact she was out of Court altogether, and he asked that the matter might be left to him. Well, it was left to him, more the pity. We all know what has followed, and I should very much like the ratepayers to be informed through you what has been the total cost to them of this very celebrated case to date. And, query, is it finally settled ?
Is there no law in existence to make our City Solicitor liable for this misspent money. If not, then I think it is high time some such law should bo brought into being.
If our City Solicitor had maintained his assurance that Schultze had no claim, he would have succeeded, for the real point at issue was never touched upon (so far as I saw from the published accounts reporting the case). It was not the cutting off of the water at the Devil’s Bridge that closed the mill at Kaiwarra, but the flour from Canterbury.—l am etc.,K. E. Bannister. Turnbull-street, Wellington, Nov. 16. 1880.
| Last updated 16/09/2025 | Text and images © Mark Berry, 1997-2025 - |