MILD VENDETTA

Evening Star, Issue 21007, 22 January 1932, Page 11

MILD VENDETTA

TWO BRIGHTON BODIES AS RIVALS OWNERSHIP OF MARKET SQUARE IN DISPUTE CHARGE AGAINST RATEPAYER DISMISSED The rivalry of the Brighton Hatepayers’ Association and the Brighton Advancement and Amenities Society and the mild vendetta which has been carried out at the seaside resort for several months past had their upshot in the Police Court to-day. When tho Amenities Society supporters erect a fence on Market square the stalwarts of tho Ratepayers’ Association promptly and solemnly break it down. The dispute is of long standing, and Mr H. W.' Bundle, S.M., did not bring it nearer conclusion when he refused to hear a charge agai i Arthur Preston Burton, of wilfully damaging on December 29 last a fence valued at £3 19s 3d, the property of the Brighton Advancement and Amenities Society, the magistrate holding that a proper application should be made to tho Supreme Court to determine the ownership of the land. “ This arises from a rather long, drawn-out matter,” said Sub-inspcctor Cameron. Tho Brighton Advancement Society was incorporated on January 21, 1922. At that time there was also in existence a known as the Brighton Amenities Society. On September 22, 1922, the twq bodies amalgamated, and were registered as the Brighton Advancement and Amenities Society. The land on which the fence was erected was originally owned by Hugh Williams, who many_ years ago laid out the township of Brighton. In his will Williams bequeathed a portion of the land to the people of Brighton. The executors of the will were Every and Young, since deceased, and as yet it had not been ascertained if any person had the power to sign the transfer of the title to the land. Subsequently the Taieri County Council formed a road through the centre of the land. So far as the County Council was concerned he did not think any application had been made to take the land under the Public Works Act. He understood that for many years somq other persons had claimed the land, but was unable to to get a title, and consequently forfeited the claim. In 1925 the Brighton Advancement and Amenities Society decided to take control of the land, and had held some occupation of the land up to the present time. Last year a body known as tho Brighton Ratepayers’ Association was formed. The society and the association were rival bodies to such an extent that the Ratepayers’ Association considered that the land should not be fenced, but should be open to the people of the district. The Advancement and Amenities Society had erected some sort of a fence, but on many occasions tho fence had been destroyed and parts taken away. " It got to such a pitch towards the end of 1931 that it was almost a daily occurrence that one party would erect the fence aid the other party would como along at night and remove it and stack the fence on a heap of sand.” said Mr Cameron. “ The Advancement and Amenities Society claims that as no other person is in authority to claim the land, it holds a proper right to this land, having placed the fence' on it for tho benefit of the Brighton people; consequently it is suggested that Mr Burton, who was with a number of others who removed the fence ” The Magistrate: Does Mr Burton, in this community, represent the Brighton Ratepayers’ Association P Mr Cameron: Ho is one of the members of the association and of the rival party. It has become a mild vendetta between tho two bodies as to which is to control tho land. Previously there has been some effort to get tho Taieri County Council to take the land over. The Magistrate: Does it amount to this—the question of the title of the land ? Mr Cameron: Yes, as to some right to it. “ After all, who is entitled to the land?” asked tho magistrate. Mr Cameron. That is difficult to say. This charge was really brought about to decide whether either party has any right to the,land. In the first place, the land was left to the people of Brighton and apparently there is nobody to sign the transfer of title of the land. The Magistrate: Are tho, “ people of Brighton ” the Ratepayers’ Association or the Amenities Society? Counsel for Burton: That is the trouble. The Amenities Society assumes they are tho people of Brighton. This is not a case that should have come before this court The settlement of this dispute must be in the Supreme Court. Throughout the police, Superintendent Eccles and his officers, have been most fair, when my client from time to time interviewed them. I have hesitation in stressing it, but I submit that this is a matter that should not come before this court at all. Two most important and very serious questions are involved, and which must be decided before this court could convict this man. Tho first question is the

status of this so-called Amenities Society, and the right of that society to interfere. As the inspector has stated, they arc assuming, on behalf of the people of Brighton, the right to fence this land off from the people of Brighton That is a question of considerable importance, and must he decided. Tho other question, and an even more important question from our point of view, is the remedy and right of the ratepayers of Brighton as to the removal of this obstruction.” The Magistrate said the matter for his determination before hearing the case was whether or not t]ie prosecution was in a position to prove that the fence was the property of tho Advancement and Amenities Society. Counsel; Exactly. And my point is that ownership of the fence depends on the ownership of the land. The Magistrate: Quite. “Is it not mischief if some person erects this fence and another destroys it?” asked Mr Cameron, “Although there may not be any direct ownership, has not the Amenities Society, in the absence of the true owner, some prior right over any other person The Magistrate: Who is the true owner? . . 1 Mr Cameron said his previous statement had been corrected. The land was marked on Williams’s plan of subdivision as a market square. < Mo one had been invested in ' ownership. . _ The Magistrate: Who has tho right to put anything up on it? Mr Cameron: As it is there does not seem to be any true owner available. The Amenities Society want _to hold possession of the land until it can be successfully Vested in some local body or authority. The Magistrate: After all, the position seems to be a bona fide dispute. There is a fence on the land, the title of which is definitely in dispute. Can you show me that the land belongs to the Brighton Advancement and Amenities Society. Mr Cameron: No, other than that they have held dominion over it for some five or six years. . “What right does it give them? asked the magistrate. . A , Mr Cameron: 1 cannot go into that, as your Worship is better versed in questions of land titles. I suggest that you should consider whether they have any right to the land as against the true owner? . The Magistrate; The mam matter is title by certain occupation, but it is not shown clearly in these proceedings that there is a definite title in this society. If there is not, and it is seriously disputed as to whom the laud belongs, the only way by which it can be determined is by proper application to the Supreme Court. Are you in a position ;o prove the title ? That is essential. If you are not in that position I will dismiss the case. Mr Cameron said he was afraid he could not carry on any further. Supposing a motor car was left on any vacant section, was any person, he asked, entitled to remove it so as to damage it? The Magistrate; When . a fence is placed on land it becomes a fixture. The very essence of this charge is ownership of the land and not the question of the damage to the fence. The action of the rival parties had given the police a great deal of worry and trouble, Mr Cameron told the court. . , “If there are two rival parties in Brighton and they wish to determine the title of this land, that application must be made to the Supreme Court, said the magistrate. “It would be quite improper for me to go into the matter. Was there any question of disorder?” . Mr ( meron: “Mo, sir. When the fence was removed two constables were present to see that no breach of the peace was committed.' 1 The Magistrate asked if the position was that when one party erected the fence the other party solemnly remove' it. , Mr Cameron: Yes. That went on for some time. “ I refuse to hear the case—the charge is dismissed,” said the magistrate. No claim for expenses was made by the defence.