ELTHAM COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 December 1922, Page 6

ELTHAM COURT.

ON A SCENIC RESERVE. REMOVAL OF TIMBER. At a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Eltham yesterday, before Mr. A. M. Mowlam, S.M., Leonard Slight and James Richard Slight were conjointly charged on four counts with, in November, 1921, trespassing on section 42, block 15, Ngaere, and felling, removing, and selling timber therefrom. The defendants pleaded not guilty on all charges. Mr. F. C. Spratt, who appeared for the defendants, raised a preliminary objection that the charges disclosed no criminal offence. If the section in question was a reserve under the Scenery Preservation Act the time limit for laying an information was six months, and that period had long passed. If the section was privately -pwned the offence alleged was merely a civil one. and could not be proceeded with under a. crominal Act. Mr. H. R. Billing, who appeared for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, explained that the section was a public reserve. If necessary he would amend the informations. This was done, the land in question being described in each information as a public reserve. Lengthy evidence taken for the Crown

went to show that Leonard Slight entered into an arrangement to split posts ? |on Dixon’s farm, which adjoined, and had previously included the reserve until it was set aside for scenery purposes. and on a farm owned by McWhirter. The boundary between Dixon’s farm and the reserve was not fenced, but was marked only by pegs, although Dixon’s farm was felled and the reserve was standing bush. Posts had been cut and taken from several chains in<sid6 the reserve, allegedly by the Slights, a track having been cut into the bush leading from Dixon’s farm. Evidence as to the sale of a number of posts by Leonard Slight at Haw era and elsewhere was given, the posts having oeen obtained, it was alleged, from the road near the reserve by the carters. The magistrate allowed Mr. Spratt’s contention that a prima facie case had not been made out against James Richard Slight, and the informations against him were dismissed. Mr. Spratt submitted that the charges should have been brought under the Scenery Preservation Act. in which case the time in which the informations could be laid had expired. The Crown

had failed to establish (if defendant was proven guilty) that any timber taken was of any value. The evidence adduced was to the effect that the Slight brothers made the arrangement for splitting the posts, no definite instructions having been given to them as to the boundaries of Dixon’s farm. They had only cut two trees outside of McWhirter’s farm—a felled ..tree which had proved rotten, and a dead tree which they felled,, and from which they cut 230 posts. They believed that they were working on Dixon’s farm, not knowing the boundary of the reserve. Mr. Billing said the Crown’s main object was to obtain a conviction to warn people that depredations of the reserves must not continue. On the evidence His Worship hold that Leonard Slight had entered upon the reserve, felled, removed, and sold timber knowing that he was trespassing where he should not. He was not satisfied with defendant’s explanation of the affair, and would hold defendant guilty of felling, removing, and selling timber from a reserve, but not guilty on the charge of trespassing. A fine of £1 on the charge of felling timber was inflicted. and defendant was convicted on each of the other two charges and ordered to pay costs, £8 14s.

ON LICENSED PREMISES. Arthur Clements, who did not appear, was charged with being found on licensed premises (the Central Hotel) on a Sunday, when the premises were required to be closed. He was fined £1 and costs 7s. Allen McCracken and Thomas Bell, charged with being found in the Eltham TTotel when it was required to be closed, pleaded guilty, and were each fined £2 with costs 7s. BY-LAW CASES. John Emerson was fined £1 and costs 7s for driving cattle along a borough street other than a stock route. Hone Riley, charged with riding a motor-cycle at night without a , light was fined £1 and costs 7s. UNDEFENDED CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended civil cases: I. J. Bridger v. T. A. Durran. £3 3s (costs £1 4s vd); Eltham Borough Council v. separate estate of Selina Ramson. £2 16s 3d (costs £1 6s 6dj; Eltham Borough Council v. T. A. Lonergan. £4 14s (costs £1 5s fid).