Gates on Roads.

Patea Mail, 12 July 1882, Page 2

Gates on Roads.

ACTION FOR WILFUL DAMAGE. At the R.M. Court yesterday, before Mr Wray, R.M., an action was brought by Mr R. B. Pearce, settler, Kakararnea, against Mr A. C. Milne, for wilful damage by breaking a gate, and for other expenses ; in all Lip. Mr Hamerton was for plaintiff, Mr Barton for defendant. The case involved a legal question as to whether the plaintiff had a right, through the Road Board or otherwise, to obstruct a public road by keeping a gate on it. The Court was in doubt ; and as a decision might have a disturbing effect, it being a common practice for local bodies to give formal permission for gates to be on roads little used, the legal point was left open for the present. The facts were as follow ; R. B. Pearce said ; I saw Mr Milne on my run on the 15th June. I saw two men galloping after cattle, and saw a gap in the fence. I had a bull in the paddock, and was afraid it would jump tbe fence. I said “ Why don’t you take the cattle up the road where there are good fences ? ” Mr Milne would not stop for some lime! but then jumped on the gate to break it and did break the hinge, which is here in Court. I said I would summon him for it. There was a gate across the road when I bought the property. It was kept there by consent of the Road Board. My cattle got out through the gate being broken, and my son got in what he could from the road, hut I shall not know what is missing (ill I brand or mob the stock. Tbe hinge and time wasted would be at least 255. He seized the gate, and ripped and tore at it like a madman —like a wild Irishman. I never saw the man before. The gale was open all the time after he drove the cattle through till they came back. The damage caused by the cattle poaching on the run, and the galloping about of two men, with damage to gate and fencesi would be about LlO. The Road Board consented in the summer to my keeping the gate till I had time to fence in the winter.

Cross-examined : If I have lost an}' cattle, my loss, will be over the amount claimed. It is better to be on the safe side. The new iron hinge cost me sixpence a pound. What will you do with the old iron ? Pearce : • Oh, you can have that, if you like. Gilbert Pearce, son of plaintiff, said ; I saw the gate in good condition before these cattle were driven through. I saw Mr Milne swinging the gate, and I can swear the gate would stand open of its own accord. I saw about a dozen of our cattle and some pigs get out that evening, and also next morning. Mr Robertson, settler near Mr Pearce’s, said when half the cattle got through, the gate closed, and Mr Milne shoved the gate back with two or three good pushes, without getting off his horse. I never said that I saw Mr Milne trying to break the gate. Did he try to break the gate ? Witness : That is what he did. He pushed the gate hard back, and when I went back to look at the gale the hinge was cracked. Did you see Mr Milne get off his horse to push the gate back ? I want you to be cautious about this. Witness : I am perfectly certain he did not get off his horse. Mr Pearce does no* speak to me, but I speak to him sometimes. The Road Board allowed him to keep that gate up till the fencing season, and that was with my consent. Cross-examined : I think Mr Milne’s temper was a little wild. The gate always shuts of its own accord, unless pushed close back. I thought the wind shut the gate. I would not like to pay more than 10s for putting a new hinge on. Mr Barton, for defendant, argued that the Rond Board have no right to give leave to a person to obstruct a public road with a gate; that unless this power is given to Road Boards by colonial statute, there can be no such right under the common law of England. The Patca West Road Board had not taken the steps required under the Public Works Act; that no public notification of this stoppage had been made ; and that that the Road Board could not grant to Mr Pearce a power not vested in the Board. Mr Hamcrton, for the plaintiff, argued that the Road Board had done what is done every day by public bodies respecting roads not required to be open for general

Case adjourned 1511 Friday week, to give time for ascertaining the legal position as to whether Read Boards have power to permit roads being closed in this manner.