GORSE ON ROADS.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11347, 9 August 1902, Page 14

GORSE ON ROADS.

A SUPEEME COURT JUDGMENT. His Honour Mr Justice Denoiston delivered judgment yesterday in the ca_e of Charles Edward Bremner and Henry William Dunn, an appeal from the determination of Jackson Keddell, Stipendiary Magistrate. » In the course of his judgment, his Honour said that the main question raised by the appeal was as to the construction of section 135 of the Public Works Act, 1894, which provided that "the Board may order the occupi"-, or in case there is no occupier, then the owner, of any land abutting upon any road or street, to cut. down or grub up as the Board may direct, and remove all obstructions to traffic or drainage, arising from the growth of plants upon such road or street up to the middle line of such road or street, along the whole frontage of the land occupied and owned by him." There was further provision for the Board, on non-compliance with such order, doing the work ordered and recovering tha cost from the occupier or owner. The question was as to whether the liability imposed -wan in respect only of such growth of plants as might be proved to have arisen or spread from plants growing on the land occupied or owned by the occupier or owner. His Honour, after discussing the section in the Public Works Act, and amendments as to the removal of gorse on the road, and the liability of the owner or occupier of the adjoining land thereto, said that it was to his mind clear, looking both at the words of the section and proviso and the previous legislation, that the proviso regarding the clearing or gorse was intended to limit and qualify, and not to increase or extend ths duty imposed on the owner or occupier by the earlier words of the section. He had had the opportunity of consulting some of his brother judges, and had come to the conclusion that he ought to act. on his own clear opinion as to the construction of the section. His Honour allowed the appeal, but as the Magistrate had followed a decision now dissented from, he did not allow costs. Mr Kippenberger appeared for the appellant Bremner.