THE TOLL GATE QUESTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2541, 5 March 1887, Page 2

THE TOLL GATE QUESTION.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. In the MastertonK..M.'.Court yesterday, before Mr Yon Sturmor, R.M., au. information was laid by Mr James Macara against Mr Job Vile, that he, did, unlawfully demand from one "Newman Shaw, a (servant of informant, a larger toll than that payablo by law. Mr Beard appeared for tho informant, . and Mr Uunny tor tho dofeudatit. The facta of the case having been admitted by all parties, set forth that, on February 4th Newman Shaw a driver of Mr Macara's left Wuodville early in the morning passed through Ngawapurua Toll gate and paid the toll demanded, and received a clearance for the ManganmliPp. Toll qato. Ho stopped, at Eke ! ahuria, and changed horses, and then drove tho same coach through the Mangunahoo gate, went to the railway station and startodonthe return journey. Tho defendant refused to let the coach pass on the return journey without paying tho toll, and demanded tho sum of ss. ■■.■■. -A.

Mr Bunny contended that as the horses wore changed between the two gatea that the driver was liable to pay a fresh toll, and that tho exemption did not.apply-. to the driver alone, but t) the animals aud the. vehicle. If the driver was allowed to pass through the lower gate on ah exemption ticket he was liable under the Act to paj a 'fresh, toll if ha iyent through ' (he {}3Jo a' time As &/• further contention, ho claimed that tho information had been wronply laid,by. the informant, as defendant was not.cbarged with demanding a fee to which*, he Was not entitled," 1 but that informant 'claimed'to be exempted. Mr Bunny further stateif that tho County Council-had.fixed ; the. eoala of obargei.under section 105 of the Act,,and thathißvclient liad;leased' the 'gate on his estimates of tho coach traffic, aud that it would be a seriou? .loss.to him if ha Was I deprived of it.- . ~; ,|lr .Beard in 'reply admitted jthe fair* ness of tho statement of-facts, and. contended that tho driver.'waaoxeuipted, and that tho ticket applied ~to the driver iand not to the hows,' He submitted that by Clause 115 if defendant charged at all for the coaoh during iho'trip specified, he.was charging a larger toll than ho was entitled to, and that there wqre'UP spooial hard, ships. ._, His Worship in giving judgment referred to subsection Bof Clause-116 of the Public Works Act, and pointed out that, as tho Council had-power to clear more gates thau one, the gate was put up in precisely the same position as if the toll had been paid at it. The defendant by Standing a toll jii th> present case had derj]ande| a larger sum. than he was entitled to, and the Act clearly stated that 110 toll shall bo payable at a gate so olparfid. Defendant was (jqed Is with 7s cost, and Councillor's fee of $\ Is. Power was given defendant to appeal.