THE WAIPORI RIVER DIFFI CULTY.
IN THE APPEAL COUBT. Second Dat— Tuesday. Argument was continued on Tuesday in the Appeal Court, Wellington, in the case Jut land Flat Dredging Co/v. M'lndoe. Mr Hos king, continuing, contended that the company claiming under the Crown had a right by prescription to pollute the Waipori liver by discharging into and sending down its course matter and of working according to th.c exigencies pf th.9 gpldfteld from time to. time. The evidence showed that if tbe right- to pollute was acquired at all it was the right to do so by all methods of gold mining according to the exigencies of the case, Iv any case it was not affirmatively shown that tbe company's operations had increased the fouling to any tangible extent and the onus was on respondent to show this. By ac quiescence, coupled with delay, respondent had disentitled himself to ask for an injunc tion. Landowners bad allowed a certain state of things to continue in existence for more than 30 years, and anyone coming into a goldfield and spending money was entitled to assume they woul^ nqs he interfered, with. vllr Eindlay, Mowing afr HoAing, for {ippejlants, contended the company had acted within the scope of its statutory authority and without negligence. Under the Mining Acts and regulations the company bad a right to dredge the river bed, and to use the water of tbe river for the purpose, and had the duty to return tbe water into the river. Whatever silt escaped the dredge did so as the inevitable result of tbe very thing authorised by the statute — namely, mining by means of a dredge. Tliere was a sub stantial distinction, between dredging and i sluicing. ' ••••■•■'••■ r.
