Gorse on Roads.

Manawatu Herald, 20 October 1898, Page 2

Gorse on Roads.

Last Friday His Honor the Chief Justice gave his judgement on the appeal case from judge Kettle's decision. We take the report from the ChtontcU'. — Wanganui County Council v. Nixon.

His Honor also gave judgement in the case of Wanganui County Council (Mr Marshall) v. A. £. Nixon (Mr Treadwell), an appeal against the decision of Mr 0. O. Kettle, S.M. The case was brought in the lower Court to recover the expense of removing gorse, etc., from the roadlinea adjoining the pro* perty of defendant. Hia Honor thought the appeal must be dismissed. The only reasonable interpretation that could be put on the provision (was that it made the occupier of land responsible for gorse growing on the roadway whioh . is the growth from or had spread from gorse, etc., growing on the land occupied by the person sought to be^ charged. This waa the legislative provision in the Public Works Act, 1882 It was seen how difficult it

would be to prove that gorse on the road may have spread from a particular hedge or land, so the law was altered and the occupier became liable if the Board or Council could prove that there were reasonable grounds for concluding that the gorse had spread from the land occupied by the person sought to be charged. In effect the change made is a repeal of the provisions enabling the Board to charjre the occupier if there be reasonable grounds for concluding that the gorse on the road had spread from the land occupied by the person sought to be charged, and thus to make it inoumbent on the Board to prove that the gorse had so spread. It seemed to him that the Legislature intended in substance to alter the law to what it was before the provision as to reasonable grounds was enacted. He did not dissent from the view of the Magistrate that the Act of 1894 was ambiguous, though he did not think that a growth on the road after the Act came into force would render the owner or occupier of adjoining land liable unless the gorse had spread from bis land. His Honor concluded that the Legislature intended only that the owner or occupier of land from which the nusiance emanated Bhonld be liable for the expenses the Board would be at in clearing the road. If it was intended to make an occupier or owner responsible for a nuisance not committed by him or hia predecessors it should be plainly so provided. It was. he thought, not bo provided. The Legislature seemed to have departed from limiting the liability to occupiers and owners "allowing" the gorse to grow, and to have extended it to owners and occupiers from which the gorse has in fact " spread," This seemed not unreasonable. An incoming tenant or intending purchaser can protect himself against the liability. He was clearly of opinion that the Statute as to the order has not been complied with, and for this reason the respondent is not liable. His Honor also thought it clear that this ground is open to respondent on this appeal. The appeal was dismissed with 10 guineas cost.