LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 323, 9 October 1908, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. A WAIROA CASE. TITLE TO A ROAD. QUESTION OF-DEDICATION. ■ . Tho Sittings of tlio Court of Appeal were resumed yesterday, when, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Justices -Williams, 1 Denniston,... and ; Edwards heard further argument" ivith reference to tlio case of; Jessie Aitkenhead Stewart, of Nuhaka (appellant), v. the County of Wairoa-(respond-ents). . Mr. Bell, K. C. (with him Mr. Crisp), appeared on behalf of appellants,.- ana . Mr. Stock (with him Mr. Sproule)-for respondents. The facts were outlined yesterday;" Argument on behalf of the appellant was concluded on tho previous day. It was submitted ;that all appellant wanted was payment for the road, at the value of tho land in 1895, and the road declared a public road. Respondent agreed to the terms, but a deadlock occurred with referenco to the of costs, and it was decided that tlio hearing should continue. The caso for the .respondents, said Mr. Stock, rested on the following grounds':— (1.) The public ' bad by user and. the expenditure of public money acquired a right to the land as- a highway. . ' • (2.) The length of such user implied a dedication by appellant, and that if was incumbent oil her to rebut that presumption, and that had • not been done. - (3.) Looking at all the facts and at appellant's own admissions, there was, in fact, a dedication of .'the road by,her. (4.) Appellant'having stood by for a long number of years and watched the public use the road, and '"having acquiesced in" such nsor and tho expenditure of public money, and having made no protest, public or'otherwise, she was-now estopped • from 'contending. that, it was not a public road.---The Chief . Justice .remarked- during /-.the course of argument that an agreement to purchase was not a dedication.. . . Mr. Justice Edwards: There does not appear to have been a concluded agreement. Both parties recognised that a roadway was necessary. -.Was the land : not. used by license of the owner, until tho question of payment was settled? Mr. Stock: We contend.that if there was no agreement that could bo enforced,, but a license only, then'that license had become ir-"' revocable by lapse of timo. ' Subsequently, Mr. .Justice 'Williams .observed:; By the law in New Zetland every ; public road in the country—not only the' soil but down to the centre of • the ear.th —is vosted in the Crown; and roads in boroughs are vested -in the borough councils. That being so, if land is dedicated as a public road the' effect of the dedication is not only to divest the .proprietor of the; surface of ..'.the road,. but :of the .ab'iolutfc fee simple of thelaud over which th'o road'goes.';. Seeing thatthe consequences -'are so serious, ought ' not *'8 m New Zealand to look much more cartfully at ovidence as to dedication P .'; Mr. Bell having replied on behalf of th« appellants, the, Court intimated that it would take time to consider its, judgment.

■ FIRE: ON jTHE S.S..TUF!AI<INA. .ft. ■ ; ' LOSS OF A, CONSIGNMENT. ' ; RIGHT OF . SHII'MEXT : DENIED. '." Argument was then heard by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), and justices Denniston, Edwards, and' Chapman, iir'the case betwoen William. Watson and James Watson, farmers, Heddon Bush (appellants), v.' the Southland Frozen Meat and Produce Export Co., Ltd. (resjjondents). Mr| iK Wyei# -With«hinj ;Mr.;:H.-,!A; ;.|slacdonald, of Inv'ercargill) appeared for the": ap-

pellants, and Sir. Hosking, K.C. (with him Mr.' Lillicrap,' of Invercargill), for tho respondent's.

Tho facts were that Watson Bros, sent a consignment of 385 sheop to tho respondents ■in August 1907, without giving any special instructions as to what was to be done with them. Tho company killed and freezed tho sheep, and without further referenco to ■ Watson Bros, or the association, their agents' shipped them by the s.s. Turakina' for London, relying upon thoir alleged practieo to treat'all frozen meat in that manner unless arrangements were made to 'the contrary. A consolidated chargo was made by the company for tho killing, freezing, and freight, and, the freight being for shipment to Lon--1 don,- tho company considered that they wero . bound and entitled to ship to London. On the . day after tho shipment was made, the company sent an invoico to tho . Southland Farmers' Co-operative Asiociation, Ltd.-, who had acted as agents for Watson Bros, in previous'transactions between tho parties. Instructions had been received by tho Cooperative .Association not to ship the meat, but these instructions were never communicated to tho company. The association did not take up the invoico and the bill of lading, and a month later tho consignment was destroyed in a tiro which took place in tho Turakma's hold. It was then found that tho consignment had never been insured. AYatson Bros, brought an action to recover from the company tho sum of £267 lis. and interest. It was claimcd that the company had' 10 authority' to sliip the meat, and that if they'wore authorised to do so they negligently omitted to insure the consignment. For tho defence it was contended that tho company received the sheep to bo killed, frozen and shipped according to usage. If they were guilty of any negligence in failing to insure, which they denied,' Watson Bros, and their agents, the Co-operative Association, were guilty of- contributory negligence in not insuring tho consignment when they bccamo aware it had been shipped. The company countorclaimed for £63 7s lid. expenses incurred by it in killing, freezing, and shipping thq sheep. Mr. Justice Williams, who heard the case, decided in favour of tho company, and this-was-an'appeal" from his judgment. Mr. Myers, in opening the case for the appellants, said that tho two substantial questions for consideration were:—(l) What was the.contraet between the parties? and ,(2) was the Co-operative Association ' the agent of appellants for the purpose of dealing generally with the meat. The Co-opera-tive Association w.is, he submitted, not the agents of appellants in tho matter, except to dispose of the skins and to sell the meat locally, if it could be done. " After hearing.further argument, tho Court adjourned until this morning.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Rjddoll, S.M.) ALLEGED THEFT OF £500. : ./An Austrian named Frank-Cvitanovich, a .iyoimg ~'nian who had' been-, engaged in the' gum. trade in the Auckland district, was charged with having on or about September 21 committed theft of £500 in money, the property of his partner, Marin Kumrick. On the application of Chief Detective M'Grath, accusod was reminded to appear at Auckland "on October 17. : DRIVERS IN TROUBLE. " George King, eharged with having been drunk whilst in charge of a horse and vehicle,-was convicted '. and fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment. Andrew Craig, similarly charged, was also convicted and fined 205., with tho alternative of seven: days 1 imprisonment. • • CHARGE OF THEFT/- J; ■ ... r A young man named Walter Howroyd ap-peared'in-answer to-a charge of having on; October, 1, at Wellington, committed theft'

of the sum of £5, the property of the Wellington Plasterers' Union. On his own application accused was remanded until this morning, bail being allowed in tho sum of £20 and two sureties of £10 each. miscellaneous! Mary Wiltshire, charged with insobriety, was convicted and ordered to conic up for sentence when called upon, on condition that she goes into the Magdalen Home. John Scott, similarly charged, . was convicted and fined 21c., and ordered to pay doctor's expenses, in default seven days' imprisonment. Wm. Black, also charged with insobriety, was convicted and fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment, and John West was convicted and fined :10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. One first offender was fined 10s., and two were,fined ss. each.