NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7797, 13 April 1905, Page 2

NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT.

AN IMPORTANT FOIST.

(Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND. April # J2. At tie Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Edwards, on appeal of ccndidcraWo interest to occupiers at land was opened up In the ca*e of David Roast v. David •.lordon, heard at Cambridge. Mr Blair appealed for opellant, and Hon. J. A. Tale for defendant, en inspector under, the Noxious Weeds Act. The- question raised was whether the o**ttpier of land is liable to pro*;.:'itio« tor failure to clear bis land »i noxious weeds »s provided l» the AcU Mr Blair argued that the Act did not provide any penalty for failure to clear land oi noxious weeds.; There was a clause providing that if any person committed ui.y of* fence against any of the provisions of the Act he should be Uuble to a penalty, but the only clause* in the Act which treated offences were sections 8, 9 and 10, which made it an offence to sow noxious weeds ; to foil to clean out threshing machines and to hinder any inspector In the execution of Ms duty. It was contended that the list of offences within the Act were exhausted in these sections. There was a duty cast on each occupier to clear Ms land, but failure to do so only gave the inspector right ta enter and do work at the expense of the occupier, without in any, way maiding the occupier liable U| criminal proceedings. Mr Tolc contended that the word! "offence" meant any contravenUon of the Act, and so long as them was any omission to comply with the Act suction 00, the penal dans*. was sufficient authority (or a magistrate to convict, A dear duty was imposed upon the land-holder and his failure to comply with it „ rendered him liable to punishment. * His Honour reserved toil decision.