MAGISTRATES COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Argus, Volume IV, Issue 291, 21 May 1898, Page 3

MAGISTRATES COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Wkdnksday —(Before Messrs J. Hmsley ami Jx. T?osanko, J.Ps.) Gardiner v. Lawson —Claim £6 10s 9d, for saddlery, etc. Mr S war brio U ap peaml for tlio plaintiff, aud there wis no appearance cf tlie defendant. Juclg r.ont was given for the amount claimed and costs (£1 17s 6.1). Raxoiaohia Road Boakd v. W. Voice. —This was an information laid by the Board against defendant for obstructing a drain, the property of the [Joird.—Mr SwurlHck appeared fo>- the Board, and Mr Buoklat.d for defendant. —Mr Swarbriek, in opening 'he case, said that although this was. a criminal information there was no question of feeling or eentimenb. The issue w.is a question of law as to whether the Board had the right to manage their work free from interference by Hie defendant. The drain was matlc by the Board in ISSS, with the content of defendant. It was rrade by the Board and paid for by them, and was clearly under their control. In February last the Board had some work carried out opposite defendant's gate and a bank about two feet high was left Contractors were about to cut down the bunk so as to give defendant access, but he refused to have this done and demanded that pipes should re put into the water-table. The Board refused to do this, and defendant then proceeded to rill up the drain and refused to clean it out unlcßS he got the pipes.—Willliam Bearsley deposed to seeing defendant put titree into the drain. The filling in would do damage to the road.—W. H. Maudeno, Chairman of the Road Board, deposed to having examined the titree and found it flat on the bottom of the drain. It would finally stop the flow of water. No more water flowed down the drain than before.—For the defence, Mr Buckland called the defendant, who deposed that the drain was made six years ago. The Board had done nothing to it since. He (witness) had deepened it at his own expense. He had made the crossing in dispute, and had asked Mr Mandeno for pipes, but was refused. He had no intention of stopping water.— The Bench dismissed the case, with costs, amounting to £2 3s, on the ground that they considered what the defendant had done did not constitute an obstruc tion