R M. COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1292, 3 December 1886, Page 3

R M. COURT, CLYDE.

Tpssday," November (Befort J; a Hickson,vJjpiE Collins Tousgaint Marie, coal.leaso proprietor, was charged oh the information of Mr Leslie .Onncan . Macgeorge, Q mnty Engineer,'with obstructing a road—being a County road—by.-.digging a ditch across same, - ' .- ■■-■'- Mr Gilkison appeared for the complainant ; and the defendant was defended by Mr Rowlatt (of Nasaby). and Mr turton (of Cromwell). ' Mr Rowlatt, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty.. ..._.. ; .... Mr Gilkisoir, in-opening the case,'said this was not \he first time defendant had been prosecuted for the same offence, bat all the punishment inflicted had no effect. Me still persisted in as it were running a muck against all laws, and indeed, was guilt/ of contempt of Court by continuing to ant in defiance; of its or ters. • Complainant had no . wish to g-j to extremes,' the de«ire being merely to fully 'convince the defendant that the.persistence by him in his perverseness would not be tolerated. He would Cill John Stuart Dickie, who deposed j I am C ranty Clerk, and know defendant, who had never applied for or received authority to obstruct the roadway facing-sections 114 and 115; block 111, Leaning Ko k District.. There are no Road Boards in the County. The whole of the Counties Act was in force in the County. Mr R'owiatt asked that the proclamation of the County be produced. Mr Oilkison sa>d no proclamation was necessary, tile Counties Act fully defining the County boundaries. Mr Rowlatt said his question was 'not answered. His request was that the pro damation of'the whole of the Counties Act being in. force in Vincent County be produced, and asked the Magistrate to take notfl of the poiat raised. W.Eraser-sworn,-deposed: 1 am Chairman of Vincent TDounty and instructed the County Engineer today the infqrmation'Sgainsß the defendant, iknow %ie rovi in question, visited it a short time and saw defendant diggiat a ditch it .Told him that I had come with the ..'view o£ staying-litigation, and if he wou'd remove the obstructions the County Council would be satisfied. Defendant then ordered. ,me away, saying it "was his property. By MV Rowlatt: Defendant was digging a big trench across the road. 1 crnild not see thet he ha>l any apparent motive f«r digging the trench. On the map produced 1 see file marks' of a tuune', also a tall rice. Defendant was digging somewhere about the lines indicated.' There is an old tunnel just above whore he was digging. I did not see any drainage from .the tunnel. If the t "rich dfefinjant was making was de p enough it wonld'drsih the tunnel Th« trench was originally filled in by the County. ■. Have been a member of the Co*sity ; Council on two occasions. The listoecsion was in the beginning of 1833. Defendant, would not allow me to go on to th-road; he claimed it as his own pro petty. Since I have been Chairman of Vincent County defendant has all along persisted in clairring the road as his p'o[;erty. By Mr Gilkison: Defendant has laid claim to the whole of the road. I, how ever, satisfied myself that the ground'was not his, .1 took uo steps to ascertain it he had any right to the tunnel. John Lmgmuir, deposed : I am a District Surveyor, having my headquarters at Lawrence. I produce a plan showing the road in ques ion. Mr Rowlatt. a'ter examining the plan, objected to it on the gmund that it was not th.H .original. and was not certified to by the Surveyor Genera! or someone authorised bybim. Examination continned : The plan produced by me is the original one, and was received by me per pust from the Dunedin Survey Office. It is the official record The initials in the corner are those of the late Chief Surveyor, Mr Arthur. I know the up! Or part of the road. I surveyed the 1 >wf-r part, ah.i conn»>c'ed the two. By Mr R.wlatt: 1 take it that the plan produced was made by the Surveyor. It evidently has been accepted as an official map. 'Ca examining it minutely I find it to be only n copy. It was sent to me from the Dunedin office as the offuial map. I am not prepared t" say that the road marked on it and in dispute was ever laid out. 1. produce the original plan of the lower portion of the road. Mr Rowlatt attain objected to the plan produced being accepted in evidence—it being only a copy, and moreover not a certified copy. LesHe'.Dnncan Macgeorge, dep 'sed: I'am County Engineer. I know the road on.the map produced and its situation. 1 Save connected it with a trig, and am sure it is a correct representation of the road in disfeMtuce. I know the of. Vincent. and can say that the road in ques tiou is in Viocnt County. It has been in general use. It has been'laid out. 'lhave seen the pegs. Is was in good order and condition before the interference complained of. I was on it on the 20th'October last. Defendant was then digging a dilch ac oss \ it. The injury done has been' repaired at a #fco**<f l/?ss, .... ,;> y " By Mr Turton : The road was first made by ivlr Holt bv the authority of the County Council. It is one chain wide. The track made is 10ft or 12ffc wide. The road, I hear, crosses a tail-race or drainage ehan.ne], and this was tilled up. The made track also cut off a hut that was in the. garden, and-destroyed some fruit trees. I have no knowledge of defendant baying a right to a tnnnel. Plan produced and made by Mr Surveyor Campbell is a" correct representation' of She ground ih dispute.; 'The certificate' of tunnel '(prbdubed)' 'refers fo the. tunned shown on the plan.' '"" Mr Qilkison objected to certificate o

tunnel being pat in, bolding that no mining privilege could interfere with a .road. Examination continued.* Certificate of tramway pro taped connecting the month of the tunnel with the Cromwell Bead, 1 recognise. Do not know of any notice ever having been given to defendant to deprive, him of these I have been County Engineer since' its initiation, and do not know of the land occupied by those privileges having been taken by the County under the .Public Woiks Act. No compensation has been paid defendant for taking the road over his tunnel. I have seen the pegs defining the road in question—three of them. One of the-lower pegs is a road peg! Cannot say it the other.pegs are road or section pegs. I . have never condemned the road in question, bat I have suggested an alternative one, I was asked by the County to report on constructing a bridge across the tnnnel. The mad I suggested would not have interfered with any of-dsfendant’e property neither the tunnel, Sut, or ".trees. There is another road through section 119 surveyed by Mr Mackay. It was surveyed with |ny view of settling the dispute betweeuv-Bolt. and Marie. ■ r „ By Mr Gilkison.- The ohjeel of surveying all the roads was to: get over the difficulty between Holt and Marie, .There was one other road ; if- made, that would have got over the difficulty. Cannot say why it was not made ; nor can 1 say why the bridge was not made. " '

This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Rowlett ssid there was really no case whatever.'. Ist. -There war no proof of the Counties Act being in full force in Vincent County; 2nd. The plan produce i showing the road was not an official ooe, being only a copy ; 3i d. Mr Marie’s right to the tunnel across the road had not been upset. The Magistrate said he did not think defendant was- properly before the Court, especially on the point raised about the map. However, before-giving judgment; he would like to hear evidence for the defence. r;

Collins' Toussaint Marie, sworn, said: I have been working in my eoal mine iu Dairy Creek for the past 12 or 14 years. I. hold a lease (o<-oducec|) for sections 114 and llfcj Block 11, LeaningX-Rock district. 1, have other rights in connection with my coal mine. I have a tnnnel and a tramway. I cannot do without the tnnnel (certificates produced). The certificate is only a copy, the original i being destroyed when house was burnt down. The Vincent County, "twelve months ago, sent two men to cut my fence down.. Lately the County Chairman saw me cleaning out the open cut of my tunnel, which bad been filled up by the County. He told me he would have a road there; and a short time after he sent a lot of men and they made a road. The road has done' me a deal.of injury by shopping the drainage; ofS&jfinvne, spoiling my crop and' fruit trees, ici ' .1 have never bad any notice from the -County- that it was intenled to tnfce the ground for a road, or to compensate me; s - ~ i By Mr Gilkison : I have a certificate for a tunnel. 1 never made a ditch across a road. - I do not know of any road in the line of my tunnel. .:• If all the lines on the mips shewing section 119 are roads, then . it is nearly all ro\ds—there are plenty, 1. used the tunnel for drainage. Since it was - blocked up I hare worked my lease at g -eat loss. - .Mr Rowlatt said that closed his case. lie would not take up the time of- the Court fnrch r than urging the points . already raised. Mr Gilklnson said: Regarding the Counties Act being, in force there was no need of a' proclamation, the Counties Act ■etcling thai point. As to the map it was j a record map of the Dunedin Survey Office, and conkl not be questioned, and for the , right of the tunn.l the p >wers of the Counties conferred bv the Pnolic Works Act override all powers (if any) the certificates conferred. The Magistrate said the map produced being only a copy was not recognisable as an official record. He was of the opinion that the County had no rijjht to make the road w'.thout compensation. Evidently' the defendants had ' ri.'hts of which the County was aware, yet they were not considered. Judgement would be for the defendant, with costs 245, and professional fee two guineas. In reply to Mr Gilkisou, the Magistrate trusted there would be an appeal, as he wislied the dispute to be settled once and for all. ' He would »ay that he did not think the.defendant had been treated well. There were two other cases against the defendant for placing obstructions on the .road in question; and these Mr Gilkison asked miuht be till the January sitting of (he Couri, fc» admit of a certified official map b ing pro-tuced. vlr Rowlatt .objected to postponement, and aske.t that they be struck ont,.saving, tli it if the County considered they had a ease, it could be brought afresh. After argument, the.Magistrate agreed to adjournment on the plaintiff agitaing to p<y cost. This waj adopted .and costs were allowed defendant of L 4 10s. WARDEN'S COURT. Bousted and Party's application for a he id race from Rough Cieek and terminating in the Eraser rivet. -r-G ranted Edward M' vanus, head race from Ned's Gully terminating in Molyneux.—Granted.