Operated by John Ellis from 1898 onwards, and still in use up to around WW2. As a flock mill, the mill was used to shred rags for use in soft fillings for cushions and matresses.
Photos show this as having a breastshot wheel, which may have been widened at some point - the outer bearing changed from being on a wooden framework, to being on a concrete construction. The mill dam was also heightened, in order to get a better head for the wheel, which caused disputes over river rights.
Photos show the mill was destroyed by fire, (perhaps more than once) but the waterwheel is shown as having survived. It's unclear from the photos if this was because it was wet, and thus unable to burn, or if it had been replaced by a metal wheel at this time.
During the hearing of the furniture trade dispute in Melbourne recently, a witness threw some light on the composition of the material concealed under the gaudy covers of cheap mattresses and sofas. Flock, it appeared, was the material commonly used, and it was of varying qualities; the low grade kind known as "black flock" being utilised to a considerable extent. The substance, it was explained, was made from dirty woollen rags, scraps of old carpet, and bagging collected by rag-pickers from dust-bins and the Corporation "tip." Without being put through any process to cleanse or disinfect them, these germ-laden rags were frequently taken right away to the flock mill, where they were soon reduced to a fluffy condition preparatory to being used for various forms of cheap upholstery work, chiefly bedding. Those who had to work amongst this stuff often found their health prejudicially affected, owing to the inroads of the filthy dust into their systems, notwithstanding that respirators were frequently used.Salvation Army products: New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13821, 6 August 1908, Page 7
In the south-eastern corner of the main building is an exhibit of the productions of the Salvation Army's Prison Gate Home at Epsom. Of interest is the display of the salvage department. Here are shown baskets full of unconsidered trifles, that are usually looked upon as rubbish. There are cotton and woollen rags, old bits of paper, and string and twine of all descriptions. About two tons a week of these motley scraps are collected by the Army from dressmakers, tailors, and printers. They are sorted and classified by the inmates of the home, and the woollens are sent to the flock mill, the rest to the paper mill. Thus they become a source of revenue. A basket is also shown containing samples of the kind of relics the Army finds in the sacks, 1600 or so of which are left at private houses for the purpose. Householders receiving the sacks relegate to them their cast-off clothing, etc. These, too, are all sorted at the home, the good articles being used to clothe the inmates, the remainder being sold to the mills again. Specimens are also exhibited here of the coir mats made at the home, and of woodwork turned out there. The display reveals the fact that this department of the Salvation Army's work is both productive and useful.
DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.
NOTICE is hereby given that the Partnership existing between the undersigned in the business of Flock Manufacturers, carried on by them at the Lower Hutt under the style of "Ellis Brothers," is dissolved as from to-day.
The business will in future be carried on by Mr. John Eli Ellis in his own name, and he will discharge all the liabilities of, and receive all the book debts and other moneys due to, the partnership.
JOHN ELI ELLIS.
WILLIAM HENRY ELLIS.
13th November, 1900. Witness - A. R. Atkinson, Solicitor, Wellington.
FIRES.Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 102, 2 May 1901, Page 4
Lower Hutt is evidently suffering from an epidemic of fires. Early yesterday morning a flock factory at Waiwetu, owned by Messrs S. Mason and Ellis Brothers, was discovered in flames, and, in spite of strenuous efforts, the building and contents were reduced to ashes. No cause as yet can be assigned for the fire. The employees were working at the factory till 11 p.m. on Monday. when all appeared safe. The building and stock was not insured, and Mr Mason estimates his loss at about £500, whilst Messrs Ellis Bros, will suffer to the extent of £200.
In a paragraph last evening on the fire which destroyed a flock factory at Waiwetu, Messrs Mason and Ellis were mentioned as the proprietors. Mr. Mason asks us to state that he has no interest in the factory whatever.
A MILL DAM.The evidence was presented: Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 763, 11 March 1910, Page 11
Before his Honour the Chief Justice in Banco to-day, John Eli Ellis and Edith Dorothy Ellis, of Lower Hutt, sued the Hutt County Council to show cause why it should order the removal of a mill-dam in plaintiff's private property at Lower Hutt, and constructed over the Waiwetu stream, on the ground that it was an obstruction within the meaning of the Drainage Act. Mr. Brandon, with him Mr. Ward, appeared for the council, and Mr. Morison for plaintiffs. Judgment was reserved.
The judge ruled that it was not correct for the council to be issuing such an order: Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 63, 16 March 1910, Page 3A DAM AT WAIWETU.
Sitting in Banco, the Chief Justice heard an originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 1908, the case involving the construction to be placed upon Section 62 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908. Plaintiffs were John. Eli Ellis, flock manufacturer, of Lower Hutt, and Edith Dorothy Ellis, his wife, and they were represented by Mr. C. B. Morison. The Hutt County Council, (defendants), were represented by Mr. A. de B. Brandon and Mr. Ward.
The summons placed before the Court the following questions: (1) Whether the local authority had power and jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908, to make an order - (a) compelling the removal of a mill dam in the Waiwetu Stream, which plaintiffs claimed a legal right to maintain, the dam being on the freehold property of Mrs. Ellis, and (b) entailing on plaintiffs a penalty for non-compliance without first having heard plaintiffs on the facts and law. (2) Whether a mill dam was "growth or refuse and obstructions" within the meaning of Section 62. (3) Whether a County Council was the proper local authority to exercise the powers of the Act in respect of an alleged obstruction situated within a River Board district. (4) Whether it was a proper exercise of authority for a local body to issue such an order as was issued to the plaintiff, John Eli Ellis, on December 11, 1909, on an indemnity by a ratepayer, without first hearing the person to be affectcd.
In his affidavit, plaintiff, John Eli Ellis, stated that the land on which the dam stood had been purchased by his wife from Samuel Smart Mason in 1907, and the business of flock manufacturing had been carried on by plaintiff there since 1898. Plaintiff believed that the defendant council give him notice to remove the dam at the request of Carl Rasmussen, owner of adjoining land, on the latter's agreeing to indemnify the council against the cost of any appeal to a magistrate under the Act.
It was pointed out by counsel for plaintiffs that the order was made against the occupier of the property, but no notice was given to the freeholder.
His Honour heard argument and reserved his decision.
SUPREME COURT.The upstream neighbouring farmer then took the mill owners to court directly: Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 134, 9 June 1910, Page 8
RESERVED JUDGMENTS.
ELLIS v. HUTT COUNTY COUNCIL.
His Honour the Chief Justice delivered judgment in the case brought by John Eli Ellis and Edith Dorothy Ellis v. Hutt County Council. The defendant council was asked to show cause why it should order the removal of a mill dam on plaintiffs' private property at Lower Hutt, and constructed over the Waiwetu stream, on the ground that it was an obstruction within the meaning of the Drainage Act.
The case was heard in Banco. His Honour said that there were two questions to be decided: Whether the mill-dam, erected in a district over which the defendant council has jurisdiction, was an obstruction in the meaning of section 62 of the Land Drainage Act; and secondly, whether if it is not an obstruction the defendant should, before making an order under that section have given notice to the owner of the land. His Honour, after lengthy references, held that the mill-dam was not an obstruction within the meaning of the Act. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, with costs.
Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. de B. Brandon for defendant.
Further evidence presented: Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 138, 14 June 1910, Page 3CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM.
SUPREME COURT ACTION.
An action for injunction affecting a flock mill dam at Waiwetu was commenced in the Supreme Court to-day. The parties were Karl Rasmussen, farmer, against Edith Dorothy Ellis, wife of John Ellis, flock manufacturer. The case was heard before his Honour Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice. Mr. Ward appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. B. Morison was for defendant. Plaintiff claimed £250 damages. Plaintiff was owner of land adjoining the Waiwetu Stream, the natural flow of which, he alleged, was obstructed by a dam erected in 1908 by a quondam owner of land, the title to which was now held by defendant. Since its construction the dam had been raised by defendant. It had caused an overflow of the stream, which had flooded and eroded plaintiff's land, and washed away the banks and certain native shrubs and trees. Defendant, according to his statement of defence, denied that the dam wrongfully obstructed the flow of the stream, and that the penning back of the water had eroded plaintiff's land and washed away any tree abutting the stream, and caused any appreciable damage. He contended that he was entitled to maintain the dam, which he urged had not affected drainage, but rather had assisted irrigation. It was also stated that plaintiff had acquiesced in the erection of the dam, and encouraged expenditure of money on it. It was shown to him at the time of its construction that defendant intended using it in her business as a flock manufacturer, and it was contended that he was disentitled by reason of his acquiescence and delay to a mandatory injunction, which would have the effect of doing irreparable injury to his business without conferring any appreciable benefit on plaintiff. A sum of £5 was paid into court by defendant to cover any damage plaintiff might have suffered. (Left Sitting,.)
A judgement was eventually made: Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 891, 10 August 1910, Page 3A MILL DAM DISPUTE.
ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT.
In the Supreme Court yesterday further evidence was heard before his Honour the Chief Justice in the adjourned case of Karl Rasmussen, farmer, versus Edith Dorothy Ellis, wife of John Eli Ellis, flock manufacturer. Plaintiff's action was for an injunction affecting a flock mill dam in the Waiwetu Stream. He also claimed £250 damages arising out of the construction of the dam. Defendant, who denied that the dam wrongfully obstructed the flow of the stream, paid £5 into court to cover any damage plaintiff might have suffered. Evidence for the defence was heard yesterday, and the case adjourned until tomorrow afternoon. Mr. W. F. Ward was for plaintiff, and Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for defendant.
SUPREME COURT.The judgement on the removal of the dam was indeed appealed: Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 83, 5 October 1910, Page 8
A DAM IN THE WAIWETU STREAM.
FARMER'S COMPLAINT.The Chief Justice (Sir. Robert Stout) delivered judgment yesterday in the Waiwetu Stream case, concerning tho effect of a flock manufacturer's dam upon land farther up-stream. The action was brought by Karl Rasmussen, farmer, of Waiwetu, who claimed £250 damages from Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, flock manufacturers, and who sought also an injunction of the Court restraining defendants from causing flooding or injury to his land.
Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. B. Morison for the defendants.
His Honour said he read his conclusion on the facts to the parties some time ago, and suggested a compromise, but negotiations had fallen through as landowners above the plaintiff's land would not consent to any arrangement. He would, therefore, proceed to give his judgment. He had visited the land, and from the evidence adduced at the hearing and his own inspection, he had come to the conclusion that the only real damage the plaintiff had sustained was the injury to the land flooded. He assessed the damage at £2. As to an injunction, the question was, could he refuse an injunction when the damage would continue, and when the plaintiff would be deprived of part of his land so long as the dam remained. Instead of part of his land being free from water save in heavy floods, part of it, perhaps two or three perches, would be permanently under water to a depth of from one to two feet. No case he know of had gone so far as to refuse an injunction, in such circumstances. He recognised that, considering the smallness of the actual damage, and the injury to it would be to the defendant to remove his dam, the action of the plaintiff and the owners above was unneighbourly, but he must follow the law, and he could not, after the best consideration, find that he could refuse an injunction. Judgment was for the plaintiff for 40s. damages, and for an injunction. As to costs, the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the lowest scale, with £10 10s. for second day. As to witnesses' expenses, his Honour disallowed the expenses of Messrs. Blair, Duthie, Thoms, Cudby, Pitt, Dorne, Forsyth, Buck, and Burns, as they did not give evidence on the point on which the plaintiff had succeeded. Other witnesses' expenses and disbursements would be fixed by the Registrar.
Counsel for defendants was given time to consider the question of appealing, proceedings regarding the injunction to be stayed in the meantime, if costs are paid and security for appeal given.
CONCERNING A DAM.Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 940, 6 October 1910, Page 7
AT THE COURT OF APPEAL.To-day the Court of Appeal was concerned with the case of Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis v. Karl Rasmussen — an action concerning a dam an the Waiwetu River, Lower Hutt. The case was heard in the Supreme Court previously by his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and the presant case was an appeal from his decision.
The court was comprised of their Honours Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman.
Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for appellants, and Mr. W. F. Ward for respondents.
Mr. Morison said that appellants in the case (flock manufacturers) were the owners of the freehold on both sides of the Waiwetu stream, Lower Hutt, on which property had been erected a mill dam by the predecessor in title, Samuel Mason. Respondent was the occupier of land about a quarter mile above the dam, also abutting on the stream. Appellants were the owners of the bed of the stream right up to the respondents' boundary, where the mill stood, and of the freehold on both sides of the stream. There were originally three heads of damages : - By slips caused by the dam, of damage to drainage, and the submersion of a small area of the bed of the watercourse. The first, said counsel, had been absolutely disproved, and the second had been abandoned. The only question left was as to the rights arising from the submersion of the small area in the bed of the watercourse - the result of every "fresh."
In reply to the Bench, Mr. Morison said that the finding of his Honour the Chief Justice on the facts was not questioned, only on acquiescence. The dam was built in 1898, nearly twelve years before the action was commenced, or before any notice was given to abate the nuisance. In the case before the Supreme Court the action was substantially a claim for damages to his land by a dam erected on Ellis's land, causing the water in the stream to back up and flow over part of the land. Plainitiff (Rasmussen) also claimed an injunction ordering the removal of the dam. The court decision was that the only real damage plaintiff sustained was the injury to the land flooded - 2 1-10 perches. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 40s damages and an injunction. The present case was an appeal against that decision.
Mr. Mousin submitted that the appellants always understood that if their dam did Rasmussen any harm they would pay for it but it was contended that respondent had debarred himself by his conduct in claiming an injunction. No injunction could be granted on the ground of a menace to title. (Sitting.)
LAW REPORTS.New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7251, 6 October 1910, Page 1
COURT OF APPEAL.
A MILL-DAM.
ORDERED TO BE REMOVED.
THE MILLER'S APPEAL.The Waiwetu Stream case, which concerns a mill-dam and its effect on land further up-stream, came before the Court of Appeal yesterday. Their Honours Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman were on the bench.
The original action in the Supreme Court was brought by Karl Rasmussen, farmer, of Waiwetu, who claimed £250 damages from Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, flock manufacturers, and asked for an injunction ordering the removal of the dam. After hearing much evidence, the Chief Justice stated his conclusions as to the facts and suggested a compromise, but this was not acceptod by the parties, as landowners above the plaintiffs land would not consent to any arrangement. Before giving judgment, his Honour visited the land, and from the evidence adduced at the hearing and his own inspection, he assessed the damage to plaintiff's property at £2, and gave judgment accordingly. He also found that he could not lawfully refuse to grant the injunction, though he considered that, considering the smallness of the actual damage, and the injury, it would be to the defendant to remove his dam, the action of the plaintiff and the owners above was unneighbourly. Judgment, therefore, was for the piaintiff for 40s. damages, and for an injunction.
The defendants appealed against the whole judgment, and submitted in their notice of motion, that it was necessary for the respondent to prove substantial damage, but that even if this was not necessary, a number of special circumstances amounted to acquiescence on the part of the respondent, and estopped him from claiming an injiiiction. Among these special circumstances, it was alleged that the respondant had delayed his action for nearly twelve years, that in his dealings with the appellants he had treated the question of the mill-dam as one of damages only, and that as a result of this attitude the appellants had spent money on their premises, erected a new water-wheel at a cost of £250, and continued to develop their business. It was further submitted that the injunction had been granted on evidence that was only applicable to a claim for a preventive injunction, and that the Court had ignored evidence against a claim, for a mandatory injunction to remove a completed work. An alternative ground of appeal was that the respondent's action was barred by the Statute of Limitations, there having been a definite act on the part of Samuel Smart Mason, the former owner of the flockmill property; who erected the dam and caused the alleged damage, which was suffered, once and for all. Finally, it was submitted that the respondent was entitled only to his remedy at law for damages.
Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for the appellants, and Mr. W. F. Ward for the respondent.
Mr. Morison had not completed his argument when the Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.
OBSTRUCTION OF WAIWETU STREAMNew Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7252, 7 October 1910, Page 1
QUESTION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
APPEAL COURT ASKED TO DECIDE.The opinion of the Appeal Court waa asked yesterday in regard to the merits of a recently decided Supreme Court action, Karl Easmussen v. Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, her husband. The case was heard by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, two months ago. Rasmussen, who owns 3 1/2 acres of land adjacent to the Waiwetu stream, Lower Hutt, alleged that a dam in the stream in connection with a flock manufacturing establishment conducted by Ellis had the effect of so interfering with tha flow of the stream that his land, above the dam was flooded. He claimed £250 damages and a mandatory injunction. The Chief Justice, after having heard lengthy argument and visited the locality, gave judgment on August 9th for 40s and £l5 14s costs, at the same time instructing that an injunction be issued calling upon Ellis to remove all obstructions to the natural flow of the water.
Ellis and his wife now brought an appeal before their Honors Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper and Chapman against this decision. Mr C. B. Morison appeared for the appellants and Mr W. F. Ward for the respondent.
The grounds of the appeal were, inter alia: - That the damage complained of was done by Samuel Smart Mason, Ellis's predecessor, in exercise of an authorised riparian user, namely, the construction, of a mill dam, Mason then being tha owner in fee simple of the bed of the stream and of both banks. The appellants, not being wrongdoers or putting the stream to a non-riparian use, and not disputing Rasmussen's rights, the proof of substantial damage or material interference with the enjoyment of his property was necessary to constitute his cause of action; that an action was not maintainable in respect to injury caused by a riparian user unless there was material injury or a nuisance was created; that even if it be not necessary to prove substantial damage there were special circumstances in the case which, assuming that Rasmussen was prima facie entitled to an injunction, afforded an answer in equity to his claim for an injunction. The special circumstances alleged included failure to prove likelihood of future damage, delay of twelve years in bringing the action, attitude showing that Easmussen treated the question as one of damages only, which conduct amounted to leave and license and stopped Rasmussen from claiming an injunction. Another ground of appeal was that on the evidence the claim for a mandatory injunction was answered and the judgment proceeded on grounds only applicable to a claim for a preventive injunction. It was alleged that Rasmussen could be compensated by a small money payment, whereas if the injunction were to issue the appellants would suffer pecuniary loss and Rasmussen would receive no material benefit.
Argument had not concluded when the court rose for the day.
OBSTRUCTION OF WAIWETU STREAMNew Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7255, 11 October 1910, Page 4
QUESTION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
ARGUMENT BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL.The Appeal Court - consisting of their Honors Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman - was occupied the whole of yesterday hearing argument in the appeal of Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis v. Karl Rasmussen against a decision of his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) relative to an action brought by Rasmussen against the Eillises for erecting a dam in the Waiwetu stream in connection with a flock manufacturing establishment to so interfere with the flow of the stream that the farmer's land above the dam was flooded. The Chief Justice had given judgment for Rasmussen for 40s and £l5 14s costs, also instructing the issue of an injunction calling upon the defendants to remove all obstructions to the natural flow of the water. This judgment was appealed against on various grounds.
Mr C. B. Morison appeared for the appellants and Mr W. F. Ward for the respondent.
It was mentioned that the Waiwetu dam had been the subject of some dispute for some time. On one occasion three owners of land higher up the stream endeavoured to move the Hutt County Council to take it away under powers conferred on the body by the Drainage Act, but the Chief Justice decided that those powers were not applicable in such a case. Another case concerning the dam is held over pending the result of the present appeal.
Mr Ward had concluded his argument when the court rose until 10.30 a.m. on Monday, when Mr Malison will reply.
Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 99, 24 October 1910, Page 2WAIWETU FLOCKMILL
EFFECT OF THE DAM.
The appeal of John Eli Ellis and Edith Dorothy Ellis, his wife, flock manufacturers, of Waiwetu, was concluded in the Court of Appeal yesterday, before their Honors Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman. In a Supreme Court action, heard recently by the Chief Justice, judgment was given against Ellis and his wife for the sum of 40s damages on account of Injury allegedly done to the property of Karl Rasmussen, farmer (plaintiff), through flooding caused by a dam in the Waiwetu stream, in connection with the flock mill. An injunction also was commanding Ellis to remove all obstruction of the waters of the stream. It was in regard to this judgment that Ellis appealed. The argument of counsel was finished yesterday and the court reserved its decision. Mr C. B. Morison appeared for the appellants, and Mr W. F. Ward for the respondent.
THE WAIWETU STREAM.Another neighbour got in on the act a year later - perhaps this was the "held over" action mentioned before: New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7948, 3 November 1911, Page 2
DECISION OP COURT OF APPEAL.Changes in the bed of the Waiwetu stream alleged to have been artifically caused were the subject of an action decided by the Appeal Court to-day.
The plaintiff was Karl Rasmussen, farmer, of Waiwetu, who claimed £250 damages from Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, flock manufacturers.
Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Edwards occupied the Bench.
In his statement of claim, plaintiff set forth that a dam had been erected in the Waiwetu Stream in 1898. Subsequently to his taking over the flock-mill worked by the stream waters, the height of the dam had been raised, causing the water of the stream to flood his property, adjoining and also causing excessive erosion of the banks. The claim included a sum as compensation for the loss of Native shrubs or trees which had been washed away. In addition to damages, plaintiff also sought an injunction by the court restraining defendants from causing further flooding or injury to his land.
The defence was that the dam did not wrongfully obstruct the natural flow of the water in the stream, that it did not cause the water to erode Rasmussen's land, or cause appreciable damage. On the contrary, the holding back of the water, it was contended, prevented the scouring out of the banks during flood time. Defendants consequently claimed that they were entitled to maintain, the dam as at present, and denied that Rasmussen had lost native plants or trees. It was asserted, also, for the defence, that Rasmussen had acquiesced in the erection of the dam, and had encouraged the expenditure of money upon it. Further than this, the defendants urged that the effect of the dam was to assist irrigation, and that the drainage of Rasmussen's land was not interfered with. It was added that if an injunction were issued, irreparable injury would be done to the defendant's business, and that the defendants had lodged £5 with the court to cover any damage that Rasmussea might have sustained.
The judgment of the Appeal Court was in favour of respondent for 40s damages, and costs on the lowest scale to stand. The injunction granted will be dissolved and £20 damages granted, instead of the injunction. Each party is to pay its own costs of the appeal.
Judges Edwards and Cooper concurred verbally, while Judge Chapman, in a written judgment, also expressed himself in agreement.
Mr. Ward appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. B. Morison for defendant.
The judge ruled that permission had been given: Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 121, 18 November 1911, Page 9BLOCKING A STREAM
ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION.
Water rights at Waiwetu and complications arising in connection therewith led to on action heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at the Supreme Court yesterday. Eleanor Thoms was the plaintiff and Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Ellis were the defendants.
The plaintiff is the owner of land at Waiwetu, through which land the Waiwetu stream runs. Defendants own land lower down the stream, and on their land they have created a flock mill, operated by water power obtained by damming the stream. Plaintiff alleged that, by reason of the damming of the stream, a considerable portion of her land had been covered with water, and there had been erosion of the banks. On these grounds she sought to obtain an injunction to restrain defendants from further damming the stream, and also claimed the sum of £500 as damages.
Defendants denied that any damage had been caused to plaintiff’s property by the damming of the stream, and they further stated that the erection of the dam had been by the express leave and license of plaintiff.
Mr A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. B. Morison for the defendants.
The parties agreed that the question of leave or license should be first settled. Evidence in regard to this matter was heard on both sides, and the court then adjourned until to-day; when legal argument in the case will be taken.
DAMMING THE WAIWETU STREAM.
LEAVE AND LICENSE PROVED.
Reserved judgment was given by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday on questions at issue between property-owners on the Waiwetu Stream.
The parties were Eleanor Thoms (plaintiff] and Edith Dorothy and John Ellis (defendants).
At the hearing, Mr. A. W. Blair, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. C. B. Morison for defendants.
Plaintiff is the owner of land through which the Waiwetu Stream runs, and defendants own land further down the stream on which they erected a dam and established a flock mill, the mill being operated by the water. Plaintiff claimed that, by reason of the damming of the stream, a considerable portion of her land had been covered oy water, and erosion of the banks had taken place, for which she claimed an injunction and £500 damages.
Defendant denied any damage, and alleged that the erection of the dam was by the express leave and license of plaintiff, who had acquiesced in its erection, and consequently lost her rights.
The only point argued was the question of leave and license.
In his judgment his Honour said the leave and license relied on was that, in consideration of the defendants raising a small bridge on the plaintiff's land and erecting a small wall, the plaintiff gave permission to the defendants to raise the water in the stream opposite the plaintiff's land by 20in. The defendants' predecessor in title had erected a dam in the stream to get water-power for machinery that had been placed on and alongside the stream. At the time the water had been raised about 10in, Ellis explained to plaintiff that the power was insufficient and that he had been advised to raise the water 18in, and he asked permission to raise it 20in. The plaintiff agreed on the defendant agreeing to raise the small bridge that covered the stream on her land, and put in a small wall or stop bank to protect part of Her land. This work was done by the plaintiff's son, who was engaged by the defendant, to do the work and who was paid therefor. After this, at considerable expense, the water was raised. This took place in 1898. No objection was then taken or for some years afterwards to the raising of the water level. The defendants' building and machinery were destroyed by fire, and a new building and machinery erected, and still there was no objection. The first objection to the raising of the bank was on 26th June, 1905. There was other correspondence, but nothing was done or agreed to, and the writ in this action was not issued until 12th May, 1910. His Honour accepted the evidence of John Eli Ellis and William Henry Ellis for the defence. The plaintiff (Eleanor Thorns), regarding some of the statements sworn to, could only say she did not remember. The question was, Did these facts substantiate a plea of leave and license? The contention was that no such license was granted, and that if granted it was revocable. He had already dealt with the first contention, and as to the second he was of opinion that it was also not valid. Hie Honour declared that the plea of leave and license had been proved.
HUTT RIVER BOARD
Mr. Fairhall, Government surveyor, supplied a report on the Waiwetu Stream. The report on the Waiwetu was an ample fall from the flock mill to the sea, and that the backing up of the water above the flock mill dam had no effect on the drainage from the Waddington settlement. The cause of the flooding of the Waddington settlement was the want of sufficient drains to carry the water into the Waiwetu.
3 years later the plan seems to have been done: Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 90, 16 April 1926, Page 9THE WAIWETU RIVER
TO BE MADE NAVIGABLE
IMPORTANT PROPOSALS.
Many old residents in Lower Hutt will remember the flourmill which occupied a position on the Waiwetu River near the present Hall-Jones Settlement. The mill was built at a time when small cargo boats were able to make their way to it, but the great earthquakes which raised the land in the vicinity put an end to water access, and the mill was no longer a payable proposition. Much water has run down to the sea since those days, and now, at the initiative of the Hutt River Board, proposals are being made to make the stream once more navigable, if only to pleasure boats. Besides the great possibilities from a scenic and pleasure-giving point of view, the cleaning of the channel is absolutely necessary to the proper drainage of the land comprising the upper watershed of the river, more especially the Government lands known as the Waddington Settlement. As various bodies are interested, a report was obtained from the engineers of the following: — Hutt River Board, Lower Hutt Borough Council, and Hutt County Council - Messrs. Laing-Meason. M.I.C.E., W. J. Barnes, C.E., and J. W. Cudby respectively - who reported as follows: -
"As instructed, the engineers appointed have made an examination of the Waiwetu River from the mouth up to section 39. To Park road, and about 40 chains up-stream, the river is fairly clear, being affected by the tide to some extent, the principal obstruction being rushes; from this point onward as far as the mill dam on section 34 the river is badly overgrown with watercress and basket willows, growing in some places completely across the stream.
"The depth of water at the present time averages 5ft, and the total fall from the dam to Park road, a distance of 2 miles 60 chains, is 18ft, so once the stream is put in proper condition there would be sufficient velocity to assist in keeping a good fairway.
"So as to conserve the velocity of the stream as much as possible, it is proposed to clear the portions affected by the tide, and as far as White's Line, 30ft in width, and all-above 20ft, making the river, as far as Rossiter avenue, a distance of 2 1/2 miles, available for boating. The portion above the flock mill dam is somewhat different, in that the water level is raised about 7ft to obtain fall for the water-wheel. This has had the effect of lowering the velocity of the stream through the Boys' Orphanage grounds, but that is not detrimental altogether, as if the dam were removed the stream would become merely a quick-running brook and the grounds would lose a lot of their present beauty. Providing the water is cleared to the dam and the stream cleared as far as section 39, and sufficient provision made for the overflow in the rainy season, this portion should be thoroughly satisfactory in all seasons.
"Owing to the extremely varied density of the obstructions, an exact estimate is impossible. After careful consideration, taking into account all factors, we estimate the work to cost as follows:—
Clearing 110 chains to White's Line. 30ft wide 275
To Flock Mill dam, 110 chains, 20ft wide 247
To section 39, 50 chains, 15ft wide 100
Clearing willows 120
Punt and gear 40
Contingency 68
[total] £850And the annual maintenance per annum £150
"We would recommend that the work be better carried out by day labour from the dam up-stream, and this should be done before the winter, the cost being under £100, and the plant for this portion of the work being available."The report was yesterday adopted by the Hutt River Board, and on the motion of the chairman, Mr. W. T. Strand, it was decided that the Lower Hutt Borough Council, the Hutt County Council, and the Government Lands Department be approached with the object of each bearing one-third of the cost of cleaning the stream on the condition that when cleaned the River Board should maintain the work.
THE HUTT RIVER
The monthly meeting of the Hutt River Board was held last evening. Present: Mr W. T. Strand (chairman), and Messrs. J. Mabey, W. H. Smith, and J. Mitchell.
The board's engineer, Mr. Sladden, reported that the contract for the clearing the Waiwetu Stream in its upper reaches was now complete. This left 18 chains from where this contract ended to the flock mill dam. It was decided that the clearing of this be also let by contract.
The secretary reported that the Public Works Department was about to start the clearing from the mouth of the stream upwards, and good work was being done by the board's workmen on the reach about the Wainui Bridge.
NEW COMPANYThe company advertised for a girl for sorting: Hutt News, Volume 1, Issue 29, 13 December 1928, Page 4
The following new company has been gazetted:-
Hutt Flock Mills Ltd., whose registered, office is at Main Street, Lower Hutt, has been formed to import flock, kapoc, etc., and to import and manufacture mattresses, bedding etc. The capital of the company is £850, divided into £1 shares, the subscribers being:- Preferential shares, fully paid up, William Thomas Hildreth, Wellington, 212; A. E. Gannaway, Lower Hutt, 36; William Henry Ellis, Lower Hutt 28; Dr. B. J. Dudley, Lower Hutt, 50; Leonard Cloake, Lower Hutt, 62; Mrs. E. D. Ellis, Lower Hutt, 30; Barton A. Ginger, Lower Hutt, 52; C. R. Barrett, Lower Hutt, 30; ordinary shares, fully paid up, Mrs. E. D. Ellis, 350.
WANTED - Girl for Sorting. Wages or contract. - Apply immediately, Manager Hutt Flock Mill's, Waiwetu.And a youth as a general hand: Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 3, 3 July 1929, Page 1
WANTED, Youth, as General Hand. Apply Hutt Flock Mills, Ltd., Waiwetu; Lower Hutt.Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 88, 10 October 1929, Page 1
WANTED, Youth and Girl, about 18. Apply Hutt Flock Mills, Ltd.Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 34, 30 January 1930, Page 8
FOR SALE - Quantity of 5-gallon oil drums, 1/- each - Apply Hutt Flock Mills, Waiwetu Road.Further unspecified legal consideration of the dam: Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 35, 6 February 1930, Page 7
HUTT RIVER BOARD.Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 98, 23 October 1930, Page 4
A legal report was received from the board's solicitor, Mr E. P. Bunny, on the position with. Messrs Ellis's Flock Mill dam. On the motion of Messrs Leighton and Chapman it was agreed that no further action be taken in the meantime.
MOTORS AND CYCLES FOR SALE
OAKLAND 6 for Sale, perfect order; £15 cash: price £30. Hutt Flock Mills, Ltd. Tel. 96K
The Lower Hutt Fire Brigade was called out at 2.30 this morning to a fire in a shed belonging to the flock mill situated off Waiwetu road. The alarm was given by Mr. Moncrieff. The five, however, had too great a hold and the shed and its contents of inflammable flock were totally destroyed. The brigade saved the adjoining office and storeroom, which were merely damaged by water.An advertisment for the firm: Hutt News, Volume 4, Issue 36, 3 February 1932, Page 1
MATTRESSES MATTRESESHutt News, Volume 5, Issue 19, 28 September 1932, Page 6
Collected 4d per lb Delivered
SAME DAY 4d per lb SERVICE
New Life Put Into Old Mattresses
STERILIZED, TEASED, DUST EXTRACTED, REFILLED
All for 4d per lb.
Phone 46-665.
HUTT FLOCK MILLS LTD., WAIWHETU.
WANTED TO BUY—Old Sheeting, pillow slips, towels, quilts, mattresses Covers, 9/4 per cwt cash. Hutt Flock Mills Ltd, phone 46-665 and we collect.Hutt News, Volume 5, Issue 21, 12 October 1932, Page 6
MATTRESSES Re-conditioned, Teased, Sterilized, Dust Extracted for 4d lb. Covers to order. Ring 63-065 Hutt Flock Mills Ltd.
HUTT RIVER BOARD.I think "waste" just means the water leaving the wheel: Hutt News, Volume 6, Issue 3, 21 June 1933, Page 5
It was decided to improve the flow of the Waiwhetu Creek, so as to remove waste from the flock mill, by clearing away weeds between the mill and Rossiter Avenue.
HUTT RIVER BOARD.Weed clearance is continually needed: Hutt News, Volume 7, Issue 38, 13 March 1935, Page 5
Complaint having been made that waste from the flock mill was causing the flow of water in the Waiwetu Creek to bank up, it was decided to have the weeds between the mill and Rossiter Avenue cleared away.
Waiwetu Stream. - Clearing from the mouth up to Malone Road was carried out before Christmas, and further attention is now being given where required. At Riverside Drive, Moera, the channel is being deepened by excavating shingle on the right bank of the small ornamental island. The restriction here tended to pond the water above and cause trouble, more particularly in connection with weed growth. Clearing from Malone Road to Flock Mill was carried out last month and is now being continued to Nai Nai Lane.Some mention of a nuisance discharge: Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 116, 12 November 1936, Page 14
HUTT RIVER BOARDHutt News, Volume 10, Issue 25, 25 November 1936, Page 6
It was decided to request the abatement of an alleged nuisance caused by the discharge of dust from a flock mill into the Waiwhetu Stream.
FOR SALE - Duco plant, motor compressor and low pressure gun. Also number of tyres, all sizes. Hutt Flock Mills Ltd.Stream back to a satisfactory state: Hutt News, Volume 12, Issue 39, 22 March 1939, Page 7
Hutt-River BoardEvening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 91, 19 April 1939, Page 3
Waiwhetu Stream. - Clearing has been carried out from the flock mill to Woodlands (Mr. W. Johnston's). The stream generally is in a satisfactory state.
HUTT FLOCK MILLS, LTD. WANTED, immediately, Thoroughly Experienced Power Sewing MACHINIST. Reply, day or night, TELEPHONE 63-065.
The growth of manufacturing industries in the Hutt Valley has been phenomenal; there is no other adequate word. And, profiting by the recent swing towards the advancement of local industries, the valley city has blossomed swiftly and soundly.
It is a far call to the day in March, 1840, when a boiler for a 20 h.p. steam engine was floated up the river, intended for use in grinding flour or cutting timber - historians are unsure on the point. Yet this was the birth of mechanical industrialisation, in the Hutt, where ship-building, timber-milling, and small-scale industry were carried on for a time on the shores of the harbour.
In those days water wheels were a means of power, and, one of them, erected in 1894, still operates at a flock mill. The lower valley had, however, early taken to agriculture, and such industries as there were were on a small scale.
CHEVROLET 6, 1932, good running order, body no good, 5 good tyres, Including two new 19 x 5 H.D. 6-ply, tyres; £65. Apply Flock Mill, Fairfield, Lower Hutt,. Saturday or Sunday.Ads start using the adjective "old", which very often implies "former": Hutt News, Volume 19, Issue 8, 25 July 1945, Page 6
AUSTIN 7, 1932, good running order, six tyres, including two not yet used; slight body repairs; £90. Apply Flock Mill, Fairfield, Lower Hutt, Saturday or Sunday.
CARPENTER, or man handy with Tools wanted for Government Housing Trellis Contract; no lost time. Apply Old Flock Mill, Fairfield, Waiwhetu Road.More fencing workers needed: Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 68, 18 September 1945, Page 3
2 CARPENTERS Wanted for Trellis Fencing, Govt. Housing, or 2 Good Workers handy with tools, no lost time. Apply Flock Mill, North end Waiwhetu Rd., Lower Hutt.[info] [photo] [photo] [photo]
| Last updated 16/09/2025 | Text and images © Mark Berry, 1997-2025 - |