CITY POLICE COURT.

(Befors Messrs J. Liddell and W. Wills, .;■ , •; Uhcleari Premises;— Ann,. IWilson was charged with failing to keep the premises owned by her in a right-of-way .off George Street clean. There was no; appearance of defendant.—lnspector Donaldson, in giving evidence, stated that the' nature of the trouble was very serious, and apt to give rise to an epidemic. Mrs Wilson had disregarded all cautions.—Defendant was convicted, and fined £l. The Waterfalls Trouble.—Elizabeth and Isabella Finnerty were charged with having, , on January 7, trespassed on sections 71, 72, and 73, block 5, Dunedin and East Taieri district, the property of Robert Rossbotham, and did refuse to leave the same when requested to do so. Mr Stamper appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Hanlon for defendants, who pleaded not guilty.—Mr Stamper, in opening the case, said that defendants were in the habit of meeting visitors who wished to go to the falls at the foot of the road at the bottom of Mr Rossbotham's premises, and taking them up the road to a certain point, where; instead of continuing along the road-line, in order to avoid an ascent, they cut across plaintiff's paddocks. In addition to that, they loosened the staples and wires, and in other ways interfered with the fence.—Mr Wills: Did the girls cut the wire?—Mr Stamper : Yes, certainly.--Mr j Hanlon: On the day in question?—Mr Stamper: Yes> not only that, but they charged for taking visitors through to the waterfalls. ' On this day thirteen or fourteen visitors ; went through plainun s premises to the waterfalls. There was a proper road, but they would not keep to it. Defendants had been warned over and over again to desist, but with no effect. Mr Rossbotham had told them that the first time they trespassed ' in the new year they would be summoned.— Prosecutor gave evidence in support of the counsel's opening statement, and in crossexamination by Mr Hanlon admitted that he had fenced across a road by permission of. the Maori Hill Borough Council, ut, so far as his memory served him, he believed that ? emission had since been withdrawn. Within an hour on the day in question the two defendants earned 9s by taking visitors across his land to the falls.—Evidence was also given by Mrs Rossbotham and Michael Rossbotham. —Mr Hanlon said there had been a great deal of trouble between the Finnerty and Rossbotham families in connection with road-lines to the waterfalls, which were on Finnerty's property. Mr Rossbotham had collected toll from people passing up the creek, but when the house which; was used for that purpose was burned down he ran a barbed wire fence across the creek, and so prevented people going -up that way: Mr FinnetfcysliaaL'a:largefamnyy accessary to- make all. ha could cut ■ of his property. He had endeavpred-tp get tthe Council Ho 'open the rt>aa-iinles, \vinm were his by rights, runnmg through Rossbotham's property, and the.CounciJhad in-, sisted irpbn this being done; but^laintftt J refused to do it, because the t most convenient: way to the waterfalls was ihrough Mslpropertyt : On,the occasion in question one of tjhe otefendants went up with visitors,, and, instead of going through the gate leading ' to their own property, they went through the fence.into Mr Rossbotham's property. But they did so owing to Mr Rossbotham's wrong-doing in obstructing a road-line which was Mt. 3?ina»rtyJs by. right. Counsel submitted -that «o long; as plaintiff phpse-ito- tjry anti-tajke -away from I **

not 4omeio,flie Courtlo. am redress. He aflmijtted that technically a b&d heea ■fiWm^t one for Vjdch they »»t in any tray. No iofuihr s»e property, and nb sinalty shtnli*;k dllflicted. If Mr RossMthafli wanted a penalty imposed to keep the tinnertys off his property, he must first :comily with the law and take away the o|stfuctions from across the foad-llnes.— SaUsbeth Mnnerty deposed that she was not Oil plaintiff's property oh the date in duesShe met thjavisitors: at tie gate leading |o heir father's property, and took them sikfoiikh hW father's property to the falls. Smother a44,?isterh|d brought the visitors fto whete, she (Vitals) tipjsi Benfth, after consider'a'tibp, mtiinated that theyl had^cctipieM#e conclusion.that a, sech'nical trespass had befeo committed, but her penalty could be imposed .Mrßbsspothjam would require .to remove the obstructibns on the road. That being, so, the case womd simply fee jdismissed. If Mr Rossbotham felt aggrieved, he must first of all remove the obstructions before he can succeed in a case. They (Juite agreed that a trespass had been committed, but still they ! could not see hov it could very well have been avoided with the obstructions to the road;