MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4310, 29 August 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TRESPASS CASE. Before Mr J. Salmon, S.M., at Paeroa this morning, Edward Gambling took action against David Marshall, for alleged trespass. Mr J. F. Montague .appeared for plaintiff and Mr E. W. Porritt for defendant.

Mr Montague said the defendant had trespassed on the property. Plaintiff gave evidence, stating that people trespassed all oyer his property. Defendant had threatened him. Damage had been done to fences, one being cut up into foot lengths. His Worship : Did defendant cut the fence up ? Witness ; I could not say. . ' Cross-examined by Mr Porritt witness admitted that residents had used his property for some considerable time. McLeod, Marshall, and Barlow had asserted, that they had a right to cross his land, considering that a

right-of-way existed. He was not willing that the stile should be shifted down near .the river bank, Tb Mr Montague ; Witness had put. up notices and advertised in the paper against .trespass. Marshall could use the same road as he (witness) did, , Emily Gambling, wife of complainant, gave corroborative evidence. Mr Porritt said the parties using the property were under the impress. sion that they had a legal right Co use the land as a right-of-way, though they had learned differently now. Using the property gave a short cut tG Paeroa. An attempt was made to have .the stile shifted near the river. Defendant had gone on the land, to meet his daughter, but had- no.t refused to leave, having gone off promptly. David Marshall, defendant, said his daughter,'while crossing the fences, had got tar on her clothing, plaintiff having tarred the fences. He went to meet his daughter ajid take a parcel so that slfe would walk the long way round, .and so avoid a repetition of the tai’ incident. He had never threatened plaintiff. Stiles were ap for .eight years, but plaintiff tpox them down. There, was no other way to get out a.t present. Plaintiff said it was the Maoris he was trying to “get at,” and not the Europeans. The buggy went axle-deep on the public road; it was no place f.or a woman to walk. He had seen £he notices and the advertisement.

Mr Montague declared that defendant still trespassed on the property..

His Worship s,aid the fact of the public road being in had order was no legal justification for trespass. As the charge .was practically the firsone, he would" merely make a'fine of £l. A second offen'ce would render defendant liable for a much heavier amount. The costs amounted .to £2 Bs.