PATEA R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, 4 August 1882, Page 3

PATEA R.M. COURT.

Friday, before Mr C.' A. Wray, R.M.

DISORDERLY

A Patea carpenter was fined 10s and costs for being drunk and disorderly near bis house at Patea on Tuesday. This was his first offence.

P. Burke was charged with assaulting T. Moran in the Central Hotel late at night on the 27th July. There had been a dispute about cards, and Moran got hit vyhile trying to stop a quarrel. The police were called in to quell the noisy disturbance. Magistrate : How is this hotel conducted now ?

Sergeant Donovan : There are no complaints, but affairs of this kind will lead to something unless there is a change. The hotel is not managed so well under the trustee in bankruptcy as it would bo if a responsible person were put in* Magistrate dismissed the assault case with a lecture.

BREAKING A GATE ON ROAD.

The civil action in which R. B. Pearce sued A. C. Milne for damage done in wilfully breaking a gate hinge on a road leading through the plaintiff’s property was resinned after a long adjournment. Plaintiff claimed £lO for fixing a new hinge on gate, also for damage to ground by cattle and horses galloping over paddockland for loss of time in hunting up stock that got out through the broken gate. It was also suggested that some pigs or one or two cattle may have been lost, but plaintiff could not ascertain until he mustered or branded.

The plaintiff’s case had closed at the previous hearing, and he was not now allowed to supplement it by giving evidence as to loss of stock which got through the broken gate. Mr Barton, for the defence, said the Road Board has no statutory power to grant leave to erect gates on roads. Mr Hamerton, for plaintiff : I have not been able to find any authority. Magistrate i Then the question will be under the common law, and it will depend whether any unnecessary damage was done in exercising the right to go over the road.

Mr Barton argued that, as the gate would not stand open, the defendant merely used such force as was necessary to make it stand open while his cattle went through. He called the defendant. A. C. Milne said : I had purchased some cattle from Mr Robertson, and was removing them : . At the gate: leading through , Mr Pearce’s property, I opened the gate and went ahead, Mr Robertson being behind. The cattle commenced to spread over Mr Pearce’s property. Mr Pearce came up and said “If you don’t take cattle off that, IMF get men and horses and put them in the pound,” Mr Robertson said we had better take; them back by the other road. We opened the gate then to drive the cattle back, and when half-a-dozen cattle had gone through, the gate shut with the wind or it swung shut. I then pushed it open, and it commenced to close again. I got off ray horse and tried to lift it off its hinges but could, not. I did afterwards push it back with both hands so that it would stand open. Cross-examined : If the gate had hot closed, I should not have’ gone to open it. The gate shut against my horse while going through a week earlier.

Mr Hamerton, for plaintiff, contended that the evidence showed more force was used in an angry manner than was necessary to make the.gate stand open, and the hinge was broken wantonly. . Road Boards have complete control of roads, under the Public Works Act, and gave plaintiff permission to keep this gate up till the fencing season.

Magistrate : In this case the defendant should so construct his gate as to offer every facility for the public to pass. The law is clear as to removing obstruction, that a person can only interfere with it as far as is necessary to enable him to exercise his right to pass along the thoroughfare. In this case defendant did use some Uttle force,, but not more than was justifiable under the circumstances to make the gate stop open. Therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. The judgment is for defendant, with costs. The costa amounted to £1 IBs 6d, and plaintiff’s own costs. DEBT. A. A. Grower obtained judgment against E. Tregear, for £3 Is and costs.