WHEN IS A ROAD NOT A ROAD?

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 18, 21 January 1921, Page 10

WHEN IS A ROAD NOT A ROAD?

When is a road not'a road? When it is a "paper" one. Many roads On survey .plans in • New. Zealand hayo^ never reached,,, and probably many never wilt rea<Jh, beyond the stage ,of "paper" road. At'least one such case exists at Ebdentown, Upper .jHut't, vvhoro a plan shows a road which, if it were. formed, would cut sright through several cottagos. 'Another vcaso occurs in the Akatarawa district, near Upper Hutt, where .it is., alleged that quite .a: large number of the houses which, border on the main road are really on tho road .which in, counties is Crown property. As far as can be ascertained, it. was, the original intention, of' the ■ Government to run the railway line some distance up the Akatarawa valley in order .•to avoid the Rimutaka- incline, and for this purpose a track two ohains wide was.surveyfli Half of this has been- since utilised afe a, road, but the other- half, > a chain wide, has never been used, and, has been fenced in by adjoining landowners, and its existencp , as, . a road practically forgotten. Whether it can now be claimed as a road by , the Crown is a point that :lias to be decidpd, and will probably, ;'incident;ally, r enter' into tho argument of a Court case, |,White,man-.Bros. v..the Hutt County Council, 'partially heard at Upper Hutt this week, before Mr F. K. Hunt,,-S.M. Whitttaian Bros..,are claiming from the Hutt County .Council \i!he fcum of £22, alleged to bo due-as rent of a cottage in Akatarawa. Plaintiffs allego, and led evidence- to show, that they let the cottage to . the defendant through' the. lattor's ' road inspector, Mr. Cudby, and that from March, 1919 to, January, 1921, they have received only £2 10s/as. rent; the property being occupied during that, time, first byone of the council's roadmen, then by an outsider, who was. granted • his tenancy by Mr. _ Cudby, but from' whom no rent was received, and lately by another roadman from whom Cudby has received a sum of money which he is holding in trust till the case is decided.' T^he defence is, first, a denial of liability pn the ground that Cudby accepted no tenancy, or if he did that he had no authority from tho council so to do/ the Counties Act stating that er.ery.contract of the kind must bo in writing signed by two councillors; secondly, a. denial that Whiteman Bros. > are ■ the owners, it being .alleged ■ that the house is ,on the road. Mr. 0. Beere gave ovii denco that ha had surveyed the property, and that the house, which stands on two' acres of ground, is, with the exception of the outbuilding, on that portion of the land which is marked on the survey plan as a road. Mr. Beere was not prepared to say whether the alleged road had beeA dedicated. iThe.facts were heard at Upper Hutt, and the legal argument, between Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb, "for plaintiffs, and Mr. T., C. A. Hislop foi 1 defendant council,, adjourned to Wellington. Tho £2 10s paid by the council was in regard to the first roadman tenant, and was paid without prejudice. Since he vacated the cottage the council recognises no liability. The council in one of its lotters to plain-' tiffs threatened to-'ask' that the Crown vest the road in tho council, and then to claim the cottage and require Whiteman 'Bros, to pay rent for the .property since it was- built some eighteen years ago.