AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8159, 18 July 1906, Page 3

AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

LATEST TELEGRAMS.

HIAVT TBAFFIC PSOBLEM.

m MH association. WiiuKaron, July 17. . A gnpreme Court Beach consisting of tf» Chief Justice nod Justices Edwards, Cooper and Chapman is engaged in hearing the Taihape case, Gardner and Boni r. Hair, a Road Istptotor for the Rangitikei Coanty Cornell, lodged a complaint under Station 198 of the Public Works Act, 1804k against the appellant* in the Magiatrate's Uoortto the effect that da Jbagitikm County Coancil had Win oWged to spend £4O 2s in repairs to the Rere-Roroato road, owing to damage alleged to be earned by the .. •ttraordinary trafno of appellants in Mftng timber oat in waggons. The Magistrate gave judgment against the •ppellanta lor £173, and they appealed to the Diftttet Court at Waaganuion tfct gfouds that aawm.lling was a 'NeogniMd industry, and that carting timber was therefore not extraordinary tfaflc | that the Council had, previously to the damage, rated appellants and ' licensed their waggons | and that the Ooucil Was guilty of contributory mligwct » insufficiently metalling the road, to which the damage was dome. Farther evidence in the case was taken here early this month, and tk* ease was removed to the Supreme Ooatt for argument The point is of btfemtf to loeal bodies.

Lira. After Mir Robinson, for appellant, had opened, Mr Bkerrett, alio on bekall o! appellant!, addressed the CourtHh contention ma, the waggon loads Ol Umber of appellants on the road in ooMtwn did not amount to "extraordinary traffle " within the meaning of Section WJtof "The Public Works ActTlWi," u amended by Beetion 11 of the Amending Act, 190 L He farther contended that Seetiou 138, of the former Art, was not cumulative in ita effects, bat only substitutional for tha provisions of Sections 130 and 133. Ifca rale laid down in the English Conrta that extraordinary traffic waa gitfged by eoniideration of what wai ordinary traffle on that particular road, Mtld hare no application to a new eonntry like If ew Zealand. Mr Skerrett ooaeladed his address at 3.46 p.m. and Mr Brown, on behalf of respondeat*, addressed the Court. Argu. ■ant had not concluded when the Oonrt adjourned.