Legal disputes due to overwatering of the Pader

Even after the technical upgrading of the Neuhaus mills at the beginning of the 20th century, they remained dependent on the ecosystem of the Pader. For example, in the rainy autumn of 1924, a long-running legal dispute arose before the Paderborn „Landgericht“ (regional court) between the Neuhaus cattle dealer Konrad Thombansen and the company A. Rosenthal & Co. The company was accused of recklessly damming the Mühlenpader at the fulling mill in order to maintain its milling operations in the centre of the village (wheat and rye mill).[1] After heavy rainfall in the late summer of 1924, the Paderwiesen (Pader meadows) of Neuhaus were under water for several weeks. Instead of bringing in fodder grass and a second hay cut during the „autumn use“ of the meadows, as was customary, the negligent flooding had caused Thombansen’s cattle to fall ill, since the animals would have had to stand in the brackish water of the Pader for weeks. The Paderborn lawyer Zarnitz claimed total damages of 750 Goldmark on behalf of the cattle trader. Rosenthal’s lawyer Auffenberg, on the other hand, pleaded on the basis of an expert opinion prepared by Lippstadt’s „Regierungsbaurat“ (government building officer) Hummel that it was not the mill but the unfavourable weather that was to blame for the Pader flood. The Paderborn „Landgericht“ followed this opinion in the first instance, so that in April 1926 the defeated cattle trader felt obliged to appeal to the Third Civil Senate of the „Oberlandesgericht“ (higher regional court) in Hamm.[2] In a technical counter-opinion by the government and building councilor Ibbrügger in March 1927, Thombansen was finally found to be in the right: The extent of the flooding of the Pader could have been avoided if all the free-fill chutes at the fulling mill had been raised in time.[3] Consequently, human error, and not the force majeure of the microclimate, was to be held responsible.