SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15939, 28 June 1917, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Dcnniston.) MAINTENANCE OF A ROAD. Argument was heard in the case of tho chairman, councillors, and inhabitants of the Waimairi County and others (tho city anil Riccarton) versus the chairman, councillors, and inhabitants of Paparua. Mr Dougall appoared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harper, with him Mr Rowe, for the defendants. Mr Johnston watched tho proceedings on behalf of the Riccarton Borough Council.

The case arose out of the Paparua County's objection to bearing part of tho cost of improving Middle Park road in the way of channelling and asphalting it, and the main points to be decided as set out in tho claim wore as follows:—

(1) Whether, upon the true construction of sections 109 and 120 of the Public Works Act, 1908, it was competent for the Governor to constitute a Commission to enquire and report with a view to determining tho proportion of the cost of maintaining, repairing, improving, or reconstructing Middle Park road, in the county of Waimairi, which alone should bo provided and paid by each local authority whose district is benefited by the existence of the said. road.

(2) Whether upon tho true construction of tho warrant of the Governor, dated June 24th, 1915, made in pursuance of the Commission reforred to in the first question, the chairman, councillors, and inhabitants of Paparua were liable to contribute in tho proportion specified to the cost of cortain works on the said Middle Park -road, namely, asphalting, concreting, and lighting the said road by electricity. (3) Whether the obligation of the chairman, etc., of tho county of Paparua is confined to the repairing of Middle Park road under the said warrant, or whether they can bo called upon from time to time to contribute a proportion of tho cost of the upkeep of the road.

Mr Dougall submitted that the main question to be decided was really, /what was "maintenance?" Ho contended that in suyh a road as that in ques"maintenance" meant more than keeping in order existing work, but also meant that the road should bo kept up to local requirements, and should include repairing nnd improving, and also sanitary requirements. Tho Hospital Board had approached the Waimairi body and asked that the road should be put in order and made sanitary. That had been done, and that was the greater part of tho work to which the defendants refused to contribute. Modern requirements required that a road should be channolled, footpathed, and macadamised, and it was only a step further to submit that lighting was also an essential, and this, too, Mr Dougall contended, was included in maintenance, though ho admitted ha did not feel on very strong ground in doing so. In a progressive country sucli as New Zealand, it was reasonable to infer that the Government, in framing the Statute, did not intend that ."maintenance" should mean the mere keeping of a road in its original primitive condition. Paparua was the furthest away of the local bodies liable for the maintenance of the road, and consequently did not feel inclined to assist in paying for -tli© asphalting, channelling, and lighting of tho road.

Mr Harper, for the defendants,- said that the improvements to Middle Park road had boon done at the request of tho Hospital Board, for the purpose of improving the entrance to the hospital, and some little distance further on. As such, it was purely a local improvement. and that was why Paparua objected to bearing part of tlio cost of the work. Paparua had originally been made a party to the maintenance of the road because of tho traffic that went over it to Paparua. and because tho Paparua people used it. but tho improvements in tho present instance, Mr Harper contended, went considerably beyond "maintenance" in tho ordinary sense. They were rather more in the nature of a luxury. Mr Rowe, in addressing the Court, spoke of the small volume of Paparua traffic which passed over the road in guestion. His Honour reserved judgment.