A Right of Way.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4295, 6 October 1882, Page 2

A Right of Way.

A case of Mr Thomas Bawden against Mr James Porteous, for maliciously breaking a fence, was heard at the K.M. Court this* morning. The origin of the dispute was that Mr Bawden about two months ago fenced up a little track adjoining bis allotment in the Waiotahi Creek which Mr Porteous regarded as a right of way, having been constructed by himself and others a dozen years ago, and bad been used by them for carrying wood and getting water, and was used by the butcher, the baker, the newspaper boy, and everyone who came to the house; iv fact it was the only approach to his residence until recently. Now there' is another track, but to get water three or four times. the distance would have to be traversed. Mr Porteous obtained an injunction against Mr Bawden,

who had to remove the fence. But the astute Tom was not thus to be bafltad, and he applied to extend his residence site, taking in the track. His application was backed up by the petition of five neighbors, who thought the closing of the road would be beneficial, their reasons, however, not being very clear, the principal one seeming to be that palings from their fences were occasionally stolen, no doubt ample reason for sending Mrs Porteous three or four times the distance for water. A notice to Mr Porteous relative to this application posted by Mr Burgess, Mining .Registrar, took a week to reach its destination, and in tK©?n»eantime Mr Kawden obtained the right. Mr Portepus made a great point in Court about the non delivery of the letter. "Was that," he indignantly exclaimed," a proper way to send a notice ? How was it when you wanted to summons me you sent it by an officer ? You had plenty of them (pointing to the constables) to send." Even j ?Mr Eenrick's assurance that sending such ( notices through the Post Office was the' usual way did hot assuage his wrath. Mr ' Porteous admitted cutting down the fence, but denied any knowledge of a right being granted Kawden. Mr Kenriek, in giving judgment, said defendant had., brought unnecessary expense upon himself. He had advised him yesterday as to the proper course, namely to go and inform Mr Eawden that he did not; know at the time he cut down the fence that any right had been granted him, and tender the expenses he had been put to, and if he thought he had a right, he -could contest the matter in the Warden's Court. He must givp Judgment against him, and might inform defendant that eren on the evidence adduced if the matter were to come before him in the Warden's Court the decision would be against him. Before granting Mr Rawdfn's application heliad a report from the Mining Inspector on the matter, and satisfied himself relative thereto.'" He could not-regard a track for an individual a right of way when there was another,road near at hand. If Mr Porteous thought he had a grievance, he should petition the County to proclaim the. track a.right of way. The. defendant said there was injustice somewhere ; he wished His Worship couM spare half an hour to visit the place and he would probably alter his opinion. A nonupft pferfalty of Is was inflicted, and tke^osts were set down at 10s, whi oh amount Porteous handed to the Cleric of the Court. Two witnesses for Eawden, Messrs Mclntyre and Staelgar insisted on payment of their expenses, which defendant refused to give, saying that Eawden was better able to do so, and that he would prefer to go to gaol. There evidently was a great deal of bitter feeling onjjoth sjdes. .^ t ,., r , < y . t ,-. „ -.