SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 772, 22 March 1910, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

A WELL-WORN STATION TRACK. CLAIM FOR TRESPASS. In an action for £200 damages for trespass, the rights of a farmer to use a track through an adjoining station as a moans of access to his property were discussed before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, in the Supremo Court yesterday. ■

Mr. C. P. Skorrett, K.C., with him Mr. H. H. Ostlor, appeared for the plaintiff, Edward Joshua Riddiford, and Mr. M. Myers appeared on' behalf of George Foreman, two defendant.

. "I may "say that Mr. Riddiford had no desiro to bo uniieighbourly," said Mr. Skerrett. "The case is simply brought to determino his legal rights. As your Honour kuows, there are many properties, in New Zealand to which ■the most convenient access is through ! adjoining. farms. Neighbours are granted the use of these tracks, and permission to use them is never re--fused' until they claim a legal right. • That is the position in this case." . Mr. Skerrett. went on to say .that Riddiford was the owner of Glenburn Station, Wairarapa, and Foreman leased certain education resorvcs in tho neighbourhood.. Foreman, who had been allowed to use. a track across the station property, claimed the right to a private. way, whereas ho hadf been allowed .'a permissive way. An injunction had been obtained from the Court,.;'prohibiting Foreman, from using tho track, but- since then he had,been' allowed to go in and out as before; that he might remove his wool-clip. Tho Court was asked to decide whether he had a right to continue to use the track. He claimed that, he was entitled to unrestricted uso of the' track on,tho grounds (1) that ho possessed a private right-of-way by usage and prescription, and (2) that it- constituted a .way .of necessity. Riddiford denied that this was the only possible route by whidi access could be :ob'tained to' Foreman's property. In regard to the first 'ground, he contended that a way could-not be obtained by prescription in violation oi the Statute, .tho Land Transfer Act. Mr. Myers pointed out that in 1882, Moore, the previous owner of Glenburn, had granted Foreman the use of the track, and ho claimed to have a prescriptive right to it. Moreover, he alleged that, owing to tho. nature of the land, 'he was unable to construct a road that would'not cross the station property. ;. , ■ '■■ ' '.'■ His Honour reserved judgment.: '

A LOG-HAULING CONTRACT. A claim for £200 damages for alleged breach of a log-hauling ' contract was heard-yesterday by Mr. Justice 'Williams. .-..•.-.' ■■-...■ The plaintiffs,' William Burgess and' , John Mitchell, were represented by Mr. K. Kirkcaldioj and Mr. C. B. Mori'son appeared on .behalf of the defendant, William. 'Vickers; V ':• The case for,the plaintiffs was that Vickers;.had caused: a breach of a writ..ten; ■ contract,?.; ; by ..selling the bush,' thereby-putting it.out of the power of the plaintiffs to deliver tho logs, .and-'of tho defendant to take delivery of them.;.'. , - ■...■■-.: '.. ■ :.- , ;j__Av'counterclaim was lodged for £340, j.yickors^seekin'g- , to •'recover this amount' -n a S- g^ *?io. 'grounds, of .the >plaintfffS"nAn-peit6'rmince of their obligation to haul aminimuin quantity of 60,000 feet, : per month, an,d\ of their breach-of a..covenant to.repair a b'ushhauler. •■ ■■■! . ■ The hearing of evidence had not concluded when the Court adjourned.