NOXIOUS WEEDS.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 22 July 1920, Page 3

NOXIOUS WEEDS.

INTERPRETATION OF ACT

Noxious weeds and their many anomalies, were the subject of a communication to the Wai pa County Council on Tuesday, from the N.Z. Counties' Association, when legal advice was given regarding intricate points of the Noxious Weeds' Act. The questions were : —

(1) Can a council compel ratepayers to clear noxious weeds from their, road frontages, while the council itself has noxious weeds growing in reserves ? (2) Are ratepayers who have just purchased properties liable to clear noxious weeds from their road frontages if the previous owners were notified to do so by the council's own noxious weeds inspector? (3) Is the council placed in a position of compelling the previous owner to clear weeds, through their neglect in not seeing that their inspector had carried out his duties?

In reply to the quostiu «-, tho Counties' legal adviser, Mr T. F. Martin, said that tho obligation of the local body, like that of the Government, under the Noxious Weeds' Act, 1908, was not expressed so as to restrict the exercise of the powers of the Act relating to the clearing of private lands and road frontages. The Government inspectors enforced the Act, but the power was given to the county councils to make by-laws enforcing the eradiction, and preventing the spread of any noxious weed or plant.

Regarding the second question, Mr Martin considered that under the Noxious Weeds' Act the present occupiers were liable. A person in occupation of any land is deemed to occupy to the middle of the road, and therefore the road frontage stands in the same position under the Act as the occupiers abutting private holding, upon which previous occupiers would have no right to enter. Power is also given to deal with gorse and specified shrubs growing upon road frontages, by other legislation.

In answering the third question, Mr Martin stated that he did not consider the previous occupier could be compelled to clear under the Noxious Weeds' Act. The rest of tho work, if the council executed it, on default being made was constituted a charge upon the land, and so would have to be borne by the new owner. By this, however, the road frontage was part of the private holding, so an order by the Council, to a private occupier, who remained in occupation during the statutory two months could be enforced against him by a fine, notwithstanding that he had ceased to be the occupier.