A ROAD CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1811, 18 July 1906, Page 3

A ROAD CASE.

TRESS ASSOCIATION Wellington, last night. The Supremo Court, ooneisting of the Chisf Jusiioo and Justices Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, are engaged hearing tho oase of Gardner and Sons v. Mair. This ie a Taibapo case. Mair is 3 road inspector for Rangitikoi County Council. The Council lodged a complaint under section 138 of'tho Public Works Act, 1894, against appellants in tbo Magistrate’s Court, Taibape, tbo effect being Shat the Rangitikoi County' Counoil had been obliged to spend £402 in repair to tho Torere-Horouta road, owing to damage alleged by tbo extraordinary traffic of apoellants in carting timbor out in waggons. Tho Magistrate gave judgment against appellants for £173. Appellants appealed to the District Court, Wanganui, ou the grounds tha! sawmilliug was a reoognieed industry, and that oartmg timbor was therefore not extraoruinary traffic; that the Council had previous to the damage rated appellants and licensed their waggons; that the Counoil was guilty of contributory rtogligouoe in insufficient metalling of tho road to which damage had been done Further evidenoo in the ease was taken here early this month, aud tho case was removed to tho Supremo Court for argument, After Mr Robinson for appellant had opened iD tho cose of Gardner v. Mair, Mr Skerrott also, on behalf of the appellants, addressed the Court. His contention was tha! waggon loads of timber of appellants on the road in question did no! amount to “extraordinary traffic” within the moaning of section 138 of the Public Works. Act, 1894, as amended by section 11 of She Amending Act, 1904. He furthor contended that seotion 188 of tbo former Act was no! oumulativß in its effaot, but orrly snbstitutional for tho provisions of sections 130 and 138. The rule laid down in English Courts, that extraordinary traffic was gauged by consideration of wbi-t was ordinary traffic) ou that particular road, could have no application to now country like Now Zealand. Mr Skorrct! concluded his address at 3.45 p m., and Mr Brown, on behalf of respondent, addressed tho Court. Argument was Dot concluded when the Court adjourned.