South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2906, 19 July 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1882.

A good deal of uncertainty and doubt exist in the public mind about two points in connection with the New Zealand Railways. The first is the liability of any person to be prosecuted for allowing horses or cattle to wander on the Amberley-Bluff line, such line not being fenced along its whole length. Contradictory decisions have been given on this point. In Timaru, some considerable time ago, Mr Perry, when summoned for allowing a horse of his to be on the line, defended himself on the plea that the line was unfenced. The R.M. refused to entertain the plea, however. In other parts of the Colony, the plea has been sometimes sustained. The public mind is left in doubt on this point and it might be well if it were at once settled. Looking at the matter from a common sense point of view, it certainly seems right to conclude that it is not incumbent on the Government to fence in the hundreds of miles of its railways. The expense would be enormous, and the fencing in of the entire line is not needed. Where the railway passes through towns it should of course be fenced, but there is no occasion to fence it throughout. It is unfair to throw the onus of keeping the line clear in the outlying districts, entirely on the Railway Department, since the necessary expenditure would be ruinous. The public, after a certain point, must be balled upon to assist in the matter, and upon them must be cast the responsibility of keeping their stock off the railroad. The permitting of stock to wander thereon must be deemed an offence, or it will daily occur.

The other point in connection with our railway management is the liability of the Department for damages in cases of fire caused by engine sparks. It has been generally held that the Department was liable for such damages; and, the question being a very serious, one for settlers living along the line, a great deal of interest was taken in the case recently before the Court, Studholme v, Regina. Mr Studholme sustained damage by fire to certain fences, &c., on bis property bordering on the line. The fire was proved to have been caused by sparks from the engine of the express, and Mr Studholme brought an action for £2OO (that being the amount at which the damage to his property was assessed) against the Department. Judge Ward held that the Department was liable, their engine sparks having caused the fire whereby the damage was done, but counsel for the Department put forward in defence that if the Department were sued for damages of this kind, it would be sufficient for them to prove that reasonable care bad been taken by their servants to prevent the accident, and the Act of Parliament would protect them from action. Counsel also pleaded that the Department was not liable for negligence on the part of its servants, but of course this plea was not entertained. The other one was upheld, however. This opens up a question. The law as expounded in this case, leaves a man. no remedy against the Department, provided it can be shown, on their side, that there has been no care’lessness on the part of their employee/j. What then would be the 'position of a poor man whose house and all worldly goods wore destroyed by fire from an engine ? Surely this w or aid bo a very hard case. We comment 1 this matter to the attention of our members.