ALLOWING GORSE TO SPREAD.

Patea Mail, 27 September 1882, Page 3

ALLOWING GORSE TO SPREAD.

At the Rangiora Resident Magistrate’* Court, Canterbury, Mr J. C. Boys, owner of rural sections 5535, 2460, and 1579, situate on the Kaiapoi and Ashley road, in the Mandeville and Rangiora Road District, was charged with allowing gorse to spread from bis fences on to the road, to.the detriment of the road. The clause is as follows :—“ If any gorse bo allowed to spread from any hedge into any road, so as to injure the same, the Board may, upon the certificate of a competent surveyor, or of any two members of the Board, after together viewing the place, that such injury is being done, order such gorse to be grubbed up and removed, as they direct, and any occupier of the land who does not, within one month after the receipt of such order, obey the same, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every day during which such order is not obeyed, &c.” Evidence was given in to prove the spread of the gorse from defendant’s boundary on to the roadway, so much so as to injure the formation. Mr Gresson, for the defence, handed in a letter from Mr Boys, in which he offered under the circumstances, to contribute half the cost of clearing the road. He pointed out that defendant’s objection did not arise from contumacy on his part, but that the gorse had been carried down by the floods,, and had not spread from his fences, which were kept trimmed. When the road was formed the contractor had to, clear the gorse, as the Board did not consider that owners should be called upon to clear it. He contended that Mr Boys was not liable, and also that the order did not comply with the Act, and was ultra vires . He did not purpose calling any r evidence. Mr Joynt submitted that the evidence showed that the. gorse had spread from defendant’s hedge, and that the order, was made as required. He also stated that the Board did not wish to press for a heavy penalty, but merely to sustain the action.

The Bench said they must be guided by the evidence, which was to the effect that the gorse had spread from defendant’s fence, and it justified the Board in coming to the conclusion that they had. They had only one point to determine, and that was whether the defendant had been called upon to do more than the Act prescribed, or whether the order was therefore ultra vires. Taken by itself, the order given was decidedly vague, but read in conjunction with the certificate, it showed the Board’s intention. The Board had, however, complied with the Act, and it was not for the Bench to say whether or not they should have accepted the offer made bv the defendant to bear half the cost. But from the. evidence before them the Bench must inflict a penalty, and.as Mr Gresson would probably appeal, they fixed the flue at £5, though otherwise a nominal sum would have been-stated. Usual costs were allowed. Notice of appeal was given.