AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 181, 12 April 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, April 9. (Before H. H. Feriton, Esq., W. G. Inrnan, Esq., Js.P., arid His Worship the Mayor.) BBEACH OP PUBLIC WORKS ACT. John A. Thacker < was charged by the Okain's i Road Board with having obstructed a public thoroughfare, by erecting a gate across it, contrary to the provisions of the above Act. Mr Thacker denied the charge. D. Wright, clerk to the Okain's Road Board, deposed, that a coinplainc had been laid by a Mr Jameson, that a gate was placed across the road leading to his pro- j perty. •' It was placed their either by Mr Thacker or his men. Acting on instructions he had received from the Board, he gave notice to the defendant to remove it, after having made himself sure that the gate was there as alleged. J. B. Barker, Chairman of the Okain's Road Board, gave similar evidence, as did also Messrs Jameson and Sefton, all tending to prove that the gate in question was a nuisance, and an obstruction to the road. . The defendant drew the attention of the Bench to the wording of the summons, which described the gate as on the road to Laverick's Bay, via " Little Hill," whereas the gate now being spoken of by the witnesses was on quite a different road, being the one by "Big Hill," some mile and a half from the other route as mentioned in the summons. The gate on the road via " Little Hill " was on his own property, and no one had any right to either use it, or question the right of its being there. As regards the other road, there had been a gate there, but it was now taken down. It might have been taken away since the summons was issued, the main point of his defence was the wrong wording of the summons. Mr W. Thacker confirmed the foregoing evidence with regard to the roads and gates being utterly distinct. After some time taken for consideration, during which the Court was cleared, the Bench decided that there was no doubt defendant had erected a gate across a public thoroughfare as alleged, and ruled that the wording of the summons was correct. A fine of Is, with costs, £3 4s, was accordingly inflicted. BREACH OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. John A. Thacker was charged by D. Wright, on behalf of the Okain's Board of Health, with having poluted a stream, by allowing the sawdust from his mill in Okain's Bay, to be discharged into the stream in question. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, but urged that he took all precautions by wire lattice work, &c, to keep as much as possible from going down the stream. Moreover, he urged that it was a tidal stream: that people did not get their water from it, and that the stream was poluted in many other ways, and by other people. Cattle walked through it, fowls, ducks, dead sheep, pigs, calves, &c, might be constantly seen in it, and in fact the whole case was one of spite, brought against him through the malice of an inhabitant of the Bay, whom he had been forced to summons for the half-share of a fence. He contended that the fact of the stream being a tidal stream, rendered the charge invalid. If he knew that any neighbour depended upon the stream for his water supply, greater care would be taken than even was being done at the present time ; but such was not the case. D. Wright reminded the Bench that the charge was laid under the Public Health, not the Public Works Act. *

Evidence was adduced; shewing that the nuisance existed, and that the stream was full of sawdust, it being in places from two to three feet deep. A sample of the water was also produced, and testified to by Dr Guthrio, who was in attendance, as being unfit for human use. This concluded the case, when the Court was again cleared, and, on resuming the Bench, in consideration of it being the first offence in the district, fined the defendant 5s and costs. Appeals were applied for in each of the above cases, but as the judgments were under £5, were disallowed. ASSAULT. A lad named Sherrick, charged P. Berland with the above offence. The whole matter was a most trivial case, the evidence shewing that the lad had been very abusive to Berland, who had accord ingly given him a thrashing. The Bench said they had no option but to inflict a nominal fine of 5s and costs, and warned the boy Sherrick to be careful, or he would be getting into trouble. The court then adjourned.