Important Case to Road Board.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1564, 24 November 1885, Page 4

Important Case to Road Board.

Afrthe Wtnfcanni Police Court yesterday morn log the case of the Wangaehn Hoad-Board^v Jr Mathews, f Or wot coinplying v with -an. order, to :, out ceTWiff furze, was again .called on. Mr Hut-chison-appeared for the board-aud Mr Bur nett for the defendant. Counsel for the defendant argued that the information, being laid under the Public Works Act, 1885, a/ sUtute of limitation therein provided, that information must be laid within six months of the date oi the order hJving been made. The ' order having 'been' made on the 11th of; April, and one month tyring, y allowed ' 'by ■•■.jtb'e;' Act, it was "ouvibus' that the information should have been laid <■ before the; • 12tji ' of/, STovember, iWhereas ;it wrs> dated 14th November. Mr Hiitcniaon contended that under section 15 the defendant, was liable to a jpenalty not . ex- ! C6ea*in'g JßS'p'er day for every day 'on which he disobeyed -the order.-^-His W^hip said the 4ct ruade it an offence to qiiobey. the. .order, and be considered tha^the defendant was liable during the time the order was m torce. but. he was not sure but that the time had elapsed. —Mr' Hutchison contended that the order .Wat good for all 'time, and the limitation' would Only' apply J toHhe dates outside of the six months from the time the information was laid. He suggested the tacte jof : ;tho, icaseushpuld; !bej itakeh and if necessary the case could then be adjquijped. to., gj\yj»,#f f ur^hejr/fbppwtnnity/ for cfiunseltto address op the point 'raised. 1 His Worship 'agreed to accept this suggestion, and proceeded to takfe- f thV eiidencerof -Mr Ltffiton, cleric of the Board as to th 6 'Order haying been made instructing Mr Matthews to cut the .furze. In cross- examination, Mr Liffiton suid ;that,tlie t^pard (had. not discussed any matters regarding the ownersWpaJf the lftndfb^t^tKey passed the. res|raw|»n on the certificate off two wanftns,%rlio stated 'that thVfurze was interfering . ' wjtlj ,", traffic. \ Notices, had been i sen*; 'seve'ral 'times to Matthews to cut the furze, and i t>vp wardenshad jthemuelves^islled 1 the 'place;- 'He did noil know whether the .^wardpns had said that i the furze spread froiii'tjie land occnpipa'^'tHe'dbfenaan't.j^MrTiitschi.fch 1 Porehianibf Works,' deposed that furze extended, halfway across the road. He could rtot 'say whether the gorse spread from MatthewsMand biit said that d,er f«ridant'R fft'nces we>e j|enerftlly m good order; This was the caB« " for the inform^nti "Mt Biifnett' submitted tK at the order had not been .rrtade .on sufficient grounds, there being hb evidence before the Boßrd,^ r ,slidw ~ wheuce ,the furzfl came. ' The wnrderis Should have given tlie Board reasonable ground for believing the jjorse" Had .spread from Matthews 1 land before the order was made. OJbnasivlMnttlrewfs' 5 defendant,, stated that he hakKo'cc'upied tlie land for 20yeare. When he took it th«»re were thrertfffcnce/8 6n;^tbe lantd^ one ) being up the n^jdd}^,of jthe,. (j.nion t v Lipe,., t ]lfr Toogobd, ( his nej^hboitr, 'aske.d him .to pay hatf tfift cost of the feribe, which defendaWref uited 1 to do, but' Wkod'hira. to remoOo'it'ahd have the fahces put up on the' right boundaries. He had put his bdundarVj. fence up eifi^ht years ago, and since that had cut it five times. Th^ ( 4wq, w^f^nflfwho h,ad, sipneel^ the cerlifiacte' '$„ arid ., 15..; B]yrb'e) knew that ttfe ffnoVw'afl ill- the middle of the road originally. 'ThWfiifzetn'ow o'o the road danWfrOm" the 5 first'f^ricev nbt from his lapd. ''Hecoijld casll; k witbees • to proveithat when his fence - was erected the go^se \vae spreading on to his jandi For tome .thiTteeii j^eara the fence,, acted, an a o^yj^in^ fence, braying grown' to a' rood height 'He never torched it biit allowed' it'tolgro^i^His fferiiejhad beeh 1 out on 7 ih6 rbaa'^ideVaria it Wii'posjjible to get'Atfwn 'his^ditch.^Mr Hutchison contended that the proviso contained m the>iAiCt-.r«lated as mnchto the furze *on thejTffjJjdin front of Matthews* as to the furze. w)nchhnd; spread, from it.--Hia Worship said that the question he' had to decide was, whether he wa? hound to asamn'e' that tlie Board had reasonable gronnd* ttit> belififvih^' lha<s ther gorse •pread fromi tKe adjoining land^or from the fonc.QSunbutting/Mhe, road, Ho thoiigtyjthat. nppi] .this P°' n Y he, , should have .mpre jevitlenqe,— Mr Hutchison thought it' must be admitted that the gome spread from the fence m the middle of the road.^-His Worship did tiot know, assuming tlm Board to conaider that the gorse really spread from

the centre of. the road that the act i? ye them, power to make an order. He w■« inclined to think, looking at the pen 1 clauses, thnt the Union Line beir.i' covered with furze was not the wrong doi.tg of defendant. He preferred W re possible to uphold local bodies m -tying their orders enforced, but he tto uld not see his way to make an order m this case.— Charge dismissed. No order made as to costs. — Herald.