GORSE ON ROADS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2638, 20 September 1882, Page 3

GORSE ON ROADS.

Yesterday, at the Besidcnt Magistrate's Court, Bangiora, Mr J. O. Boys was charged with allowing gorse to grow on the road fronting his seotions, in contravention of section 98 of the Public Works Aot. Mr Joynt appeared for the Mandeville and Bangiora Boad Board, Mr Gresson for defendant. Captain Parsons, chairman of the Board, aaid Mr Duncan (another member of the Board) and himself inspeoted the fence, the gorse of which had seeded and spread from Mr Boys' fence up to the metal on the road along the whole of his frontage. The fence was an old one, and had been there before the road was formed. They oertifled to the Board that injury was being done to the road, so much so that it would soon stop traffic. Steps were taken to notify same to defendant in the forms produced. There was no doubt the gorse had spread from the hedge in question. Latterly it had been oarefully trimmed, but previously it grew very wild. Two or three years ago defendant when called on oleared a portion of the road. In July last he wrote to the Board Lletter produoed, stating Mr Boys was willing, under the oircumstances, to pay half if the Board would pay the other half of the oost of clearing]. To Mr Gresson —The work could be done at 7e per ohain. It would disturb the road to clear the gorse. No authority had been given to Mr Boys to break up the road. Siuoe the road waa formed defendant had kept his fences trimmed latterly. M. Dunoan, J. Beeve, and J. Noonan gave evidence. Mr Gresson said Mr Boys did not defend the action out of oontumaoy, but he was anxious to dear the gorse if the Board would do its part, as on the shingling of the road the contractor did not dear the then existing gorse plants, and a good seed bed waa formed for a aubaequent growth of gorse. He contended that the Aot did not contemplate dealing with gorse on roads, except such as cauld ba shown to have spread from the adjoining section, and in this case this was not, in his opinion, clearly proved. Mr Joynt oontended that there was no doubt the seed had come from defendant's fence, and the Board was by no means liable to be called on to divide the expenae of olearing. The Aot distinctly provided that all gorse growing in front of a person's seotion must be oleared by the person from whose land the gorse had spread. The Board in this case did not press for a heavy fine, but with a view to assert its authority. The Besident Magistrate said from the evidence it was clear defendant had allowed gorse to grow on the road. The evidence given justified the Board in its proceedings, and the only point was whether the notice given was in accordance with the Aot, but taking it in oonneotion with the certificate of the members the proceedings were properly oarried on. Whether the Board could aooept the offer made by Mr Boys or not was not a matter for the Court to decide, but must reat with the judgment of tho members. The defendant was convioted, and a nominal penalty would be imposed, unless defendant wished to appeal. Mr Gresson aaid an appeal would be made. A fine of £5 was then imposed, and notice of appeal was given.