Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 436, 7 January 1857
WELLINGTON.
The Philip Laing arrived here yesterday, the 23rd, after a tedious passage of 146 days, having experienced a great many calms during the voyage. ... She brings fifty-four passengers in all; and a large quantity of goods. Mr. Kebbell, formerly of Manawatu, has returned by her, and has brought with him the machinery for a steam flour mill, which, we understand, is to be erected on Te Aro Flat, at the small stream on the west side of the native pa.— Spectator, Dec. 24th.
Referenced many times in passing in the 1850's and 60's Wellington Independent, Issue 1318, 2 October 1858
Wellington Markets.Wellington Independent, Volume XIX, Issue 2091, 23 July 1864
Saturday, October 2, 1858.
The Mills.—Owing to recent heavy importations, flour has slightly declined in price, and the market is dull. The following are the prices quoted at the different Mills, viz.;— Schultze's Mill — Flour, £21 per ton; sharps, 13s. per 100 lbs.; wheat, 5s. to 8s. 6d. per bushel; bran, 1s. 6d. do. Kebbell's Steam Mills —Flour, £20 to £2l per ton; sharps, 10s. per 100 lbs,; wheat, 8s. to 8s. 6d. per bushel; bran, 1s. 6d. do. Cameron's Mill —Flour, £21 per ton; sharps, I3s. per 100 lbs.; wheat, 8s. to 8s. 6d. per bushel; bran, 1s. 6d. do. Renall's Mill —Flour, £21 per ton; sharps, 13s. per 100 lbs.; wheat, 8s. to 8s. 6d. per bushel; bran, 1s. 6d. do. Britannia Mill —Flour. £21 per ton; sharps,. 13s. per 100 lbs.; wheat, 8s. to 8s. 6d. per bushel bran, 1s. 6d. do.
THE MILLS.Wellington Independent, Volume XV, Issue 1384, 29 November 1859
Kebbells' Mill.— The market is well supplied with Adelaide Flour, and prices have a downward tendency. We quote Adelaide flour at £28 per ton; Colonial, £27 do. Wheat, nominal, and very little in the market
Schultze's Mill. — The same as above.
WANTED, A MILLER who thoroughly understands Stone Dressing, at Messrs. J, and T. Kebbell's Steam Mill, Te Aro. November 29, 1859.Wellington Independent, Volume XIX, Issue 2174, 2 March 1865
Mr Wallace suggested that Slaughter Houses be allowed to be erected near the new Market Hall, over the water supplying Messrs Kebbell's mill. Several members dissented from Mr Wallace, as the supply of water to Messrs Kebbell's mill would be hurt by the refuse running into it, which would also render it unfit to use on board ships getting their water from that stream for return voyages.Wellington Independent, Volume XX, Issue 2256, 9 September 1865
Takanaki Place (Opposite Kebbell's Steam Mill)Wellington Independent, Volume XXI, Issue 2345, 7 April 1866
Residences.— We are glad to see that a handsome new private residence is in course of erection for T. Kebbell, Esq., of the Te Aro Mill. The erection of this building is being rapidly proceeded with, and when completed, the building, will be one of the most handsome and commodious in the city.
As a steam driven mill, a supply of coal was needed to power it, and over the years various supplies were experimented with Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXVI, Issue 149, 12 December 1867
Bay of Islands Coal.— The following account of some interesting experiments on the Bay of Islands coal has been forwarded to us by Mr. John Kebbell: — "The coal-consuming portion of your readers may be glad to hear of the following experiments upon some coal from the Bay of Islands. Half a ton of the above coal lasted thirty minutes longer than what we considered the best English coal, leaving only 281b. waste clinker, and no ashes. The English coal made 114lb. waste of clinker and ashes — the weight of each sample being about equal. Some few weeks ago we were using some Newcastle(N.S.W.) and some bad English. With these, it required considerable attention to keep up steam, with the damper pretty open. The English coal, in the experiment, required but little attention, with the damper partially closed. The Bay of Islands coal, if distributed equally over the bars, requires no further attention, with the damper so nearly closed that it is believed the coal would have been burned more economically if the area of the furnace bars had been reduced one-third. An indicator was used to ascertain thut the amount of work done in each trial was equal. The trial of the English coal was the more favourable of two trials. I am, sir, yours truly, John Kebbell."Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3345, 14 November 1871
New Zealand Coal. — Mr John Kebbell supplies us with the following particulars of trials of coal at Messrs Kebbell's mill :— I have been obliged to refer back to past trials for a comparison, as the engine was doing more work at the time of experiments in 1869 than in 1871, when the Collingwood and Grey coal were experimented on. Compare English coal in 1869 and 1871. In 1869 : — In each case half a ton was accurately weighed. English steam coal supposed to be and looked like Hartley lasted 3 hours 35 minutes; rapid generation of steam if required. Newcastle, N.S.W. lasted (114 lb. waste) 3 hours 50 minutes, Bay of Islands (28 lb. waste pure clinker) 4 hours 20 minutes. The clinker of this coal injures the bars as bad as South Wales coal of England; otherwise a good steam coal with five eighth spaces between bars. In 1871: English coal the same as above lasted 4i hours 25 minutes; clinker and waste about the same as N.S.W. above. Ist trial of Collingwood lasted 4 hours 55 minutes; 2nd ditto, 5 hours. This coal cokes sufficiently only to prevent it running through the bars, requires no further attention than to put on coal to keep the bars covered; clinker and waste similar to N.S.W. Grey coal (I could only get one half ton) lasted 5 hours 5 minutes. This coal would make the purest coke, as the waste and clinker were practically nil. I used to be well acquainted with the Northumberland and Durham coal in England, and can only compare it with the celebrated Tanfield Moor and Lambton seams, and consider it not inferior. In our furnaces it was found rather objectionable on account of its coking qualities : it required attention to break up the surface to allow sufficient air to pass but where a stoker is always on watch the objection vanishes.
Extension of the mill Wellington Independent, Volume VIII, Issue 3719, 4 February 1873
TO BUILDERS. Tenders for additions to Mr Kebbell's mill will be received up to 7th February, at noon. Drawing and specification at my office. The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted. O. J. TOXWARD, Architect. 3rd February.
The partnership was dissolved in Feb 1874 Wellington Independent, Volume XXIX, Issue 4017, 3 February 1874
Notice is Hereby Given that the Co-partnership carried on for some time past at Wellington, in the Province of Wellington, by JOHN KEBBELL and THOMAS KEBBELL, under the style or firm of Messrs J. and T. Kebbeli, was this day DISSOLVED by mutual consent. Mr Thomas Kebbell is empowered to discharge and settle all debts due to and by the said Co-partnership. The business will in future be carried on by the said Thomas Kebbell, on his own account. As witness our hands this first day of February, 1874. - THOMAS KEBBELL. JOHN KEBBELL, Witness — Wm. G. Beard, Articled Clerk, Wellington.
New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5345, 15 May 1878
A half-acre of land, with a mill erected thereon, in Manners—street, the property of Mr. T. Kebbell, has changed hands at £8000.Evening Post, Volume XVII, 25 January 1879
We are informed that Messers J. and T. Meek, of Oamaru, have completed arrangements for taking over and re-opening Thos. Kebbell's flour mill, Courtenay Place, which has been closed for a long time past. The intention of the new proprietors is to grind all wheat obtainable from Rangitikei and Manawatu district, where it is said about one thousand tons is grown every season in excess of what can be worked off in the ordinary channels.Otago Daily Times, Issue 5829, 13 October 1880
KEBBELL'S FLOUR-MILL, WELLINGTON.Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 1236, 2 February 1881
THIS VALUABLE PROPERTY to be LET on LEASE or for absolute SALE, situate in Manners street, Wellington, with water frontage to the harbour; at present in the occupation of Messrs T. and J. Meek, millers. Possession to be given on the 1st of February, 1881. The Mill is in complete working order, and is capable of turning out 90 tons per week. For further particulars apply to CHARLES WHITE, Panama Chambers, Wellington.
A company is being floated to purchase Kebbell & Co's. flour mill, the present lease to Meek & Co., of Oamaru, being about to expire.Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIII, Issue 9326, 3 February 1881
It is understood that a company is being floated to purchase Kebbell's flour mill. A large number of shares have already been taken.New Zealand Mail, Issue 621, 28 December 1883
The undermentioned properties were withdrawn from sale, the reserve prices not being reached, but are now open for private sale by the auctioneers : —Kebbell’s mill, Te Aro;Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 11, 14 January 1886
Valuable Property, Manners-street, known as Kebbell's Mill. For Sale by Public Auction at an Early Date. WITHOUT RESERVE. T KENNEDY MACDONALD & CO. are favoured with instructions from the Liquidators of the Wellington Land and Building Company (Limited) to sell by public auction, at an early date — The VALUABLE WAREHOUSES, Stores, &c , known as Kebbell's Mill, Manners-street TO BE SOLD ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT RESERVE.Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 31, 8 February 1886
IN THE EXCHANGE LAND AND MERCANTILE AUCTION ROOMS, Panama-street. ON FRIDAY, 26th FEBRUARY, 1886, At 2 o'clock p.m. Absolute Unreserved Sale of Valuable Property, Manners-street. T KENNEDY MACDONALD & CO. are favoured with instructions from the Liquidators of the Wellington Land and Building Company (Limited) to sell by publio auction, on the above date, WITHOUT RESERVE FIRST-CLASS FLOUR MILL/WHEAT WAREHOUBE, OUT-STORES, AND LAND. This grand property consists of a BLOCK of LAND, part of Town Acre No. 213 on the plan of the CITY of WELLINGTON, having a frontage to LAMBTON HABBOUR of 135 feet 5 inches by a depth of 210 feet, with a right-of-way to MANNERS-STREET of 19 feet 9 1/2 inohes, extending to a depth of 94 feet from Manners-street. The Southern frontage is 133 feet, and the land is subjeot to a right-of-way of 9 feet wide, adjoining Town Section No. 212. running from the Southern frontage to Lambton Harbour, such right-of-way terminating when Mr. Thomas Kebbell shall cease to occupy his present residence. The said right-of-way, 9 feet wide, also extends a distance of 84 feet along the Southern frontage. On the property is erected THE ONLY FLOUR MILL in the City AND SUBURBS OF WELLINGTON, Wheat Stores, &c, &c. The mill is fitted with silk-dressing machinery. The purchaser will have the full compensation which will be obtained from the Corporation for the water rights taken under the Te Aro Foreshore Reclamation Terms— Ten per oent. cash deposit, and balance in 30 days from date of sale.Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 42, 20 February 1886
ABSOLUTE UNRESERVED SALE OF VALUABLE BUSINESS SITE. T KENNEDY MACDONALD & CO. are instructed by the Liquidators of the Wellington Land and Building Company to sell by PUBLIC AUCTION, WITHOUT RESERVE, ON FRIDAY, 26th FEBRUARY, 1886, At 2 o'olook p.m., The Valuable Property in Manners-street, known as KEBBELL'S MILL. Remember these Facts :— Absolute Unreserved Sale, ON FRIDAY, 26th FEBRUARY, 1886. T. KENNEDY MACDONALD & CO., Land and Meroantile Auctioneers, Panama-street.Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 46, 25 February 1886
Our readers will no doubt remember that the sale of the Wellington Land and Building Company's property will be held tomorrow by Measrs. T. Kennedy Macdonald and Co., at their rooms, Panama-street, at 2 o'clock, when Kebbell's mill, situated in Manners street, and having also a long frontage to Lambton harbour, will be sold to the person who bids highest. The property is admirably situated, and will without doubt greatly increase in value on the completion of the Te Aro reclamation. The buildings consist of valuable flour mills and outhouses. From a resolution published in another column, whioh was passed at a meeting of the liquidators of the company, it will be seen that they have decided to give the public an opportunity of purchasing the property without any reserve whatsoever.
Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 23, 27 July 1888
The Foreshore Committee presented the following report :—" The Committee beg to report — ... 2. Re Macarthy's claim for injury to his property (late Kebbell's) on the Te Aro foreshore : That the Mayor has by request of the Committee been in communication with Mr. Macarthy on this matter, and that Mr. Macarthy has expressed his willingness to accept £400 in full of all claim under this head, in lieu of the Corporation filling up and raising the mill and building, and further that he is willing to take the above amount in land valued at £20 per foot. This is independent of any foreshore rights which Mr. Macarthy may possess. The Committee recommend that this offer be accepted." On the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Allen, the report was adopted.Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 142, 17 June 1889
The claim for loss of foreshore rights made by Thomas George Macarthy with respect to the land on which the flour mill at one time worked by Mr. Kebbell is erected, is being investigated in the Compensation Court to-day. Mr. Justice Richmond is presiding, and the assessors are Messrs. T. Kennedy Macdonald (for the claimant) and J. Lockie (for the Corporation). The claim amounts to £6000, and is made on the following grounds : — (a) Diminution in value of flour mill and machinery; (b) depreciation in value of land by reason of its being cut off from water frontage; (c) expense which will necessarily be incurred in filling up a large part of the said land and in raising the mill machinery and stores thereon by reason of the height to which the embankment formed by the reclamation has been carried relatively to the level of the southern part of the said section. Messrs. Travera and Gully appear for the claimant, and the City Solicitor (Mr. Martin) is on the other side.New Zealand Mail, Issue 903, 21 June 1889
COMPENSATION CASE.Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 66, 14 September 1889
The hearing of the compensation case of T. G. Macarthy v. the Corporation, claim L6000, for loss of foreshore rights, was resumed before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond, and Messrs T. K. Macdonald and J. Lockie (assessors). Mr Travers appeared for the claimant and Mr Martin for the respondents. The witness John Wellsby, called by the respondents, in further examination, stated that the pressure of the engine at the claimant’s mill was 50 horse-power. In cross-examination, he stated that the machinery was in bad condition, and it required a thorough good overhaul. It would cost about L300 or L400 for a new 50 horse-power engine and L200 for a new boiler. He believed that an outlay of L1000 would put the machinery in good working order. If he was going to run the present mill he did not think it would be necessary to alter the present levels of the boiler and engine, as he thought better drainage could be got at those levels. If the box drain was filled to overflowing with flood water and the sluice was open it would bring the water to the level of the bottom of the boiler. The boiler would then have to be raised. George Wiltshire, city surveyor, stated that the enclosed culvert on the property was sufficient to carry all the water away. Did not think it would be necessary to fill in the city property. If Mr Macarthy were to be given land between Victoria street extension and his mill for compensation it would not be necessary to fill up the whole width of the land. Carts go in at present. The working of the mill had not been interfered with by the reclamation. Thomas Meek, residing at Oamaru, deposed he was lessee of the mill from 1879 to 1885. Did not work the mill for the last two years of the lease, as it was out of date, roller-made flour having come in the market from the South. The mill was not profitable. Did not think it would be necessary to raise the mill to the level of the reclamation to enable it to he worked. Did not think the mill would be more effected by water now than hitherto. When witness had the mill the beach access and sea frontage was never used, as there were no means of getting a dray along. Would certainly prefer having the property as it is, with an entrance from the back, than when he had it. Had not experienced any inconvenience from the water from the open sewer. By Mr Travers : Had manufactured a lot of flour here, but had made no profit in the end. The fact that the roller-made flour had superseded the stone mill flour was the principal reason. F. W. Cottrell, carrier, that cartage from the Queen’s Wharf to the claimant’s mill would be cheaper by way of Victoria-street than Willis apd Manners-streets by about 3d per ton. Thomas Kebbell, who occupies the premises in front of the mill, stated that he and his brother had erected the mill about 30 years ago. Had not experienced any inconvenience from the sewer since the Council had placed a grating in Polhill’s Gully. During a fresh had seen the water running from 12in to 15in deop. James Liddle, called by Mr Travers, stated that he had managed the mill for Messrs J. and T. Meek from July, 1879, to February, 1880. During that time the mill was very profitable, and the balance sheet for that period showed a profit of L2000. The quality of the flour was excellent, and they cut nearly all the southern flour out of the market. The mill was working night and day. The mill was stopped working several times by water overflowing from the drain. It would be worse now with the same amount of water. Considered it would be necessary to raise the mill to the level of the reclamation. A flourmill would be a good business in Wellington. By Mr Martin : Mr Meek had put a large amount of capital into the mill. Did not know whether the profit made included interest on this capital. There were no roller mills in New Zealand when their flour was so much in demand. James Foster stated that he had worked the mill for Messrs Meek for about five years. The mill worked satisfactorily, and good flour was turned out. When they ceased working the mill, the machinery was in good order. It was not in such good condition now, and it would require expenditure of about L300 to put it in working order. Alexander McDonald, baker, stated that the quality of flour made at Meek's mill. was very good. This was all the evidence. The case was then adjourned until Saturday.
Supreme Court.New Zealand Mail, Issue 916, 20 September 1889
Yesterday. (Before Mr. Justice Richmond and a special jury.) MACARTHY V. THE CORPORATION.
Evidence in this case was concluded after we had gone to press yesterday. William Howe, Thomas Howell, Michael Quinn, Joseph Pudney, Tom Wilson, and Thomas Shanahan wore tendered by Mr. Martin for cross-examination as to the condition of the box drain, but the jury said that they did not require to hear any more evidence of that kind, and they were therefore not examined.
James Jury Kerslake, Corporation overseer, deposed that in rainy weather the part which was not covered in was not foul, but through the debris getting into the open part the water in the flour mill property was dammed back and become foul. Mr. Loughroy, late City Surveyor, had made a teat of the volume of water in the stream, and found that there was three times as much at the mill as there was at the city boundary.
Thomas Meek, a member of the firm of J. and T. Meek, millers, Oamaru, deposed that his firm had held a lease of the plaintiff's mill from 1879 to 1885. The engine was out of date, and was expensive to work. It was only worth the price of old metal. The mill was quite unsuitable for a roller mill.
Cross-examined by Mr. Travers — A condensing engine was more economical than a high-pressure one. Witness' firm sometimes worked the mill night and day. They only took a lease for two years, but as they intended to build a mill of their own in Wellington, they took a further lease of Kebbell's mill. He never heard any complaints from the employes as to the quality of the water in the stream, although he knew that it was a little foul at time.
John Wellsby, mechanical engineer, was the last witness. His evidence was to the effect that he had made a thorough inspection of the engine, and considered it to be worth the price of old iron only. It was almost worn out. Did not consider it would cost more than £200 to replace the engine, which was about 50 h.p., with a new one. By an expenditure of £20 or £30 a rough gravel bed could be formed, and the water of the stream would then be suitable for a surface-condensing engine.
Edward Seagar, engineer, re-called by Mr. Travers, deposed that the cost of putting the engine into fair working order would be about £250. It could then be worked for several years. The cost of putting in a new engine and boiler would be fully £2000.
The Court than adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.
This Day.
His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m. today.
Mr. Travors asked whether it was necessary that further evidence should be called as to the cost of a new engine. Counsel explained that he asked the question because of the discrepancy between the estimate of Mr. Seagar and that of Mr. Wellsby.
The Foreman of the jury said that they did not require to hear any further evidence on that point.
Messrs. Travers and Martin having addressed the jury, His Honour summed up. The learned Judge said that the controversy had been ultimately reduced to something whioh could be very easily stated. The plaintiff claimed that he had been deprived of the use of the water, and that in consequence the condensing engine had been rendered useless, and he also claimed that through the fouling of the stream a nuisance had been created. The property had been unoccupied for several years, and so far no one had been injured by the effluvium. The Corporation had recognised its duty, and intended to cover in the sewer, and under those circumstances the damage sustained by the plaintiff with respect to a nuisance could only be assessed at a small amount. The jury must, therefore, direct their attention principally as to the measure of loss sustained by the plaintiff by the deprivation of the water through the befouling of the stream. The evidence of Mr. Kebbell showed I that the fouling had commenced prior to 1863, and the testimony of that gentleman and Mr. Smith also went to show that although nightsoil sometimes came down the stream, the practice had not been a regular one until the past two years. There seemed to be very little doubt as to the time when the stream was converted into a sewer in the full sense, as Mr. Marchant, at one time City Surveyor, had given evidence that only surface water, which of course was necessarily foul, waa allowed to flow into the stream; while Mr. Baird, who succeeded Mr. Marchant, had stated that water closets were not allowed to be connected with the stream until after 1880. His Honour went on to say that the closing in of the stream would extinguish all rights to the use of the water, and the question therefore as to whether the water was now fit for use need not be considered by the jury. The learned Judge quoted clause 305 of the Municipal Corporations Act to show that the Council had power to enclose any stream which had become so polluted as to be dangerous to public health, and was not liable for compensation in respect of anyone being deprived of the water flowing in such stream. His Honour said that the clause did not go to the length of enabling the Council to convert into a sewer any stream which it had itself polluted, without being liable for compensation. On the other hand, the jury knew that dead cats and refuse of all kinds were thrown surreptitiously into a stream close to low neighbourhoods, and the Corporation was empowered to step in and cover in the stream as soon as it became foul. His Honour directed the jury that clause 305 of the Municipal Corporations Act, whioh he had quoted, was not a sufficient answer to the claim of the plaintiff. His Honour referred to the estimates given as to the value of the buildings and the machinery, and the jury were directed that in assessing damages for deprivation of water they must take into consideration the fact that the condensing engine had beon rendered useless.
In reply to the Foreman, His Hononr said the jury must bring in their verdiot under two heads, viz., the measure of damage for loss of water, and the measure of damage for the committal of a nuisance. His Honour also explained that the jury could not order plaintiff to be recompensed by a certain supply of water.
Mr. Martin undertook that the Corporation would cover in the stream through the property within three months, and Mr. Travors said that he was willing under those circumstances to accept a verdict of 40s damages for the nuisance.
After some argument it was decided to leave the question of damages on both heads to be decided by the jury.
At 12.35 the jury retired to consider their verdiot.
The jury returned at 2. 10 p.m., and gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages £250, for deprivation of water rights, and 40s damages for the creation of the nuisance complained of. The amount of costs was reserved by his Honour.
The Court adjourned to Thursday next at 10 a.m.
THE COURTS.[photo]
SUPREME COURT.
CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, September 12. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond and a special jury.) MACARTHY V. THE CORPORATION. Mr Travers, with him Mr Gully, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Martin represented the Corporation. William Robertson Perston was chosen foreman of the jury. The plaintiff (Thomas George Macarthy) alleged that he was the owner of part of section 213, and was entitled to have the use of the water of a stream which flowed through the same for his cattle to drink, and divers other purposes; that the defendant Council wrongfully polluted and disturbed the stream, and still continued so to do in such a way as to render it unfit for the plaintiff’s cattle to drink, whereby the plaintiff has lost the /use of the stream, and the value of his land has been greatly lessened thereby. He therefore claimed the sum of L6OOO as damages. For further causes of action he claimed L6OOO, as the water had been polluted and was unfit for domestic purposes, and had been rendered unfit for the requirements of a mill belonging to the plaintiff, erected on the said land. The statement of claim goes on to show, that the defendant, acting under the authority of the Te Aro Reclamation Act, 1879, some time since reclaimed a certain portion of land below high water-mark adjoining the northern boundary of the plaintiff’s land, and the plaintiff had suffered the cutting off of the water frontage. On the 20th September, 1887, the plaintiff’ made a claim against the defendant Corporation for compensation for the loss sustained by him by reason of the reclamation, and both parties agreed that the claim should be adjusted and settled in the manner set out in an agreement in writing made between them. The copy of the agreement showed that the City Council had agreed to allow the plaintiff reclaimed land, valued at L2O per foot, to the extent of L4OO, with a frontage to a street running eastward for Cuba-street extension. The City Council were to make a brick culvert in the plaintiff’s premises in lieu of the then existing wooden one, and also a sufficient connecting drain from the mill to the sewer, and to supply the mill with sufficient water free of charge to work it from the city service mains. These terms the plaintiff accepted, and agreed with the Corporation that if they were carried into effect he would release hem from all actions and demands whatsoever, whether by reason of the reclamation or the polluting of the stream above referred to. And although the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform the conditions of the agreement, the defendants had hitherto refused, and still continues to refuse, to perform the said agreements. Wherefore the plaintiff claimed that the defendants be required to specifically perform the said agreement, and to do all acts necessary for the performance thereof on their part; or in tlqe alternative that the Court would decree that the defendant Corporation pay the plaintiff whatever sum it should think as sufficient, and as damage in respect to the non-performance of the agreement. The defendants in their pleadings denied that the plaintiff was entitled to the use of the water in the stream. They said that at the time of the construction of the brick culvert enclosing the higher parts of the stream they received permission from Mr Thomas Kebbell, one of the prior owners, to lead sewerage into the stream. This was in the year 1881, and the plaintiff did not become possessed of the stream until 1886. The Corporation has for upward of 20 years enjoyed the right of fouling the stream by leading sewerage into it. The defendants denied that they ever virtually agreed with the plaintiff that the compensation; claim should be adjusted and settled, as stated by the statement of claim; that the alleged agreement Avas never executed by the Corporation in any of the modes set out by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1886; and that the agreement Avas never signed by any person authorised by them in such a Avay as to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. On the 28th May, 1888, the Foreshore Committee of the Council authorised Mr Samuel BroAvn, the then Mayor, to negotiate with the plaintiff with respect to any claims he might have against the defendants, and as to acquiring the right to the stream as a public drain. Mr Browll and the plaintiff made the arrangement by which the latter Avas to take the reclaimed land to the extent of L4OO, as stated. The defendants contended that the arrangement and correspondence Avas settled by Mr BroAvn Avithout the express authority of the Council, and that they had refused to ratify it. The defendants further stated that at the time the agreement was entered into the said Samuel Brown was aAvare of the approximate quantity of Avater necessary for Avorking the mill, and it Avas Understood that the maximum quantity of water required would be only 6000 gallons per day, whereas it is believed that over 100,000 gallons per day Avould be necessary. Evidence for plaintiff was given by T„ Kebbell, W. P. Barber, J. Liddle, E. Seager, J. Foster, J. P. Luke, N. Marchant, J. D. Baird. At the conclusion of the last witness’ evidence, the hearing of the case was adjourned until 10 o'clock next morning.The hearing of the case was continued before Mr Justice Richmond last Friday. On resuming, his Honor, referring to some remarks he had made on the previous day that it was unfortunate that the case had been allowed to come into Court, said that after having heard the explanation of counsel he must admit that there were questions of law and of fact which either side might reasonably determine to take into Court. Further evidence in support of the' plaintiff's ease was given by James Wood, H. P. Higginson, T. G. Macarthy (the plaintiff), and A. G. Johnson. Evidence for the defence was given by James Kerslake, Thomas Meek, and J. Wellsby. At the conclusion of the evidence for the defence, the case was adjourned until 1 o’clock next day. The case was concluded on Saturday. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury retired at 12.35 p.m., and returned at 2.15 with a verdict for the plaintiff, giving £250 damages for deprivation of water rights, and 40s damages for the nuisance complained of. The question of costs was reserved.
| Last updated 16/09/2025 | Text and images © Mark Berry, 1997-2025 - |