PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1881. FENCING BILL.

Patea Mail, 30 April 1881, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1881. FENCING BILL.

It is intended to rc-introdnce the Fencing Bill, which passed through the Upper House last session, but was abandoned in the Lower House for want of time. The bill proposes to impose a penalty for planting gorse without consent of neighboring occupier. This would be a harsh condition in a district where gorse has been found to be the best known fence, as it is in this district. There are parts of the colony where gorse has become an expensive nuisance by being allowed to spread I without cutting. A hardship of that kind should not be mot by a law which would work inconveniently to a larger number of persons in other districts. It could be met by imposing a moderate penalty for neglect of cutting in the proper season, such penalty to be recoverable by the police if set in motion, or by the County Council. A civil penalty should also follow in the shape of power to sue for damage to neighboring land. These, however, are not provisions in the bill. The gorse clause (No 23) says : No person shall plant gorse or sweetbriar, or dig a ditch upon or alongside any boundary line or dividing fence, without the consent of the occupiers of the adjoining lands ; and no person shall plant as aforesaid upon any fence bounding or abutting upon any public reserve, or Crown lauds, without tire consent first obtained of the proper authority having control oversuch reserve or Crown lands ; and any person who shall contravene the provisions of this section shall be liable, for every such offence, to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds ; and the occupier of the adjoining land as aforesaid shall be entitled to fill up such ditch, and to take up and destroy such gorse or sweetbriar fence, and to recover in any Court of competent jurisdiction the cost of such work from the person who shall have so contravened the provisions of this section. As to paying half cost of dividing fence, tenants of Crown land are to have the choice of paying interest on such cost at 15 per cent, annually, thereby repaying the principle. Where adjoining occupiers cannot agree as to the kind of fence to be erected, the B.M. is to determine the question when duly appealed to. An occupier may proceed to erect a dividing fence, if no written objection be received within 21 days after formal notice given ; half the cost to be recoverable. Where parties do not agree to erect a dividing fence within two months after notice on open land, and six months on bush, the bill provides that the giver of the notice may proceed to fence, if no written objection be received within the specified time. The maximum price for half cost is fixed in the bill at 20s per chain for “ any sufficient fence” on rural land,

(Established 1875.) the cost of clearing bush to be extra. In boroughs the half cost shall not exceed 355. No greater sum than the actual half cost is to be chargeable in any case. Half the fence may be on adjoining land, except on public roads. Cost of repairing boundary fences is to fall equally on joint occupiers. Where a fence is injured or destroyed by accident, either adjoining occupier can proceed to repair it at once, and recover half the cost. If such injury be done by one occupier’s stock or by bis negligence in any way (including fires), he shall repair the same at his cost. The bill contains 40 clauses, and specifies 17 kinds of sufficient fence. REG REA. TIOJV QUO UND. Thk bye-laws passed by the Patea Domain Board are few and simple. Putting aside the discussion on them, these bye-laws may be accepted as a reasonable outcome of varying opinions. All clubs are to be placed on the same footing as to rights, privileges, and protection of expenditure. The question of charging fees remains undecided, and the legality of such a charge is still in dispute. The Chairman of Trustees was authorised to obtain a legal opinion on certain debated points, and the Board will better understand the legal extent of its delegated powers at the next ordinary meeting, May sth. It seems desirable to point out that the bye-laws passed at the adjourned special meeting will need confirming by the Board. As they stand, their legality may be questioned upon any case of prosecution for breach ; and it is better to avoid tin’s contingency by formally adopting what was done at the special meeting. Business was transacted at that meeting which was certainly not specified in the notice convening it, although the Act provides that no business can be entertained at a special meeting unless distinctly specified in the notice. It is not competent to do special business under cover of some general phrase, the particular clause in the Act being designed to prevent that. As to the Governor’s confirmation being necessary to legalise bye-laws, that is a separate question. The Board’s position is, that until the bye-laws passed at a special meeting are confirmed at a general meeting, the chief business done at a special meeting may be declared irregular and therefore illegal, because such business was not separately specified in the notice. The notice issued by the Board forbidding play on the ground till byelaws be passed is operative in the meantime, except in the two cases where permission has been given to use particular portions of the Recreation Ground. The Football Club has a large area from which to choose a suitable site. To include any portion of the cricket pitch in the football area would be unreasonable, because the extent of the enclosure has been lately doubled, and the new ground is quite fit to play on. If the Football Club would prefer the new ground to be cleared of weeds, that is surely within their means. If they expect the Domain Board to go to this expense, all other clubs will be entitled to have their ground prepared, and this is manifestly out of the power of a Board which starts without funds and without present revenue. The Board has not finally decided the question whether clubs shall pay a. fee or rent to have their ground maintained in order. That would not work equitably, because the Cricket Club would require a large outlay for frequent cutting of grass and frequent rolling, whereas the Football Club would need no such expense, and their land could be grazed with sheep at a profit. Any club that requires exceptional expenditure in making and maintaining its ground should be prepared to face the cost. A desire is expressed to form a Bowling Club in Patea, and of course that would mean an exceptional expenditure to prepare and keep its ground in suitable condition. The outlay, when incurred, would need protecting by the Board’s powers. This appears to us to be the proper use for a Domain Board,

to first allot the ground to proper applicants, and then maintain the vested interest which would necessarily grow up in each case. The Board must either bear the whole expense, and buy up existing rights in cricket expenditure, or it must pi-otcct all such rights in a spirit of intelligent equality. The right of a club to any piece of ground would be revocable at will, and if revoked there would be a fair claim to the refund of money spent on the ground. Such claim might be forfeited by a club refusing to comply with reasonable orders made by the Board. One general expense must fall on the Board, namely the maintenance of fences. It seems to us that this might fairly come out of future revenue from portions of the Domain to be leased in paddocks. This would leave no tax to impose on athletic clubs, which would each bear the cost of its allotted ground.