MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Golden Bay Argus, Volume VI, Issue 73, 21 October 1897, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Wilson Heaps, Esq., S.M.) Thursday, Oct. 14th. • The Court was continued on Thursday just after we went to press. J. Walker v. J. Richards. —Charge of as .a.lit. Mr Maginnity for plaintiff, Mr Foil tor defendant. In this case the facts as shown (and ! admitted) were that Walker (in conjunction with H. Grant) had obtained a contract from the Road Board to improve the old tramline at Ferntown in order that Grant might cart up machinery for a sawmill. In carrying out this work, Walker was driving a cart over the Run Taniwha river, near Richards' property, when Richards placed his hand on the horse's head, and told Walker that lie could not permit him to go on with the work there as he was trespassing on his (Richards') land. This constituted the assault. For the defence Mr Fell urged that Richards was acting within his rights as ownei oi the land He produced a plan of Richards' land and raised the question that it was beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the matter. Mr Maginuity argued that even if Richards was the owner of the adjoining land he could not have any title to the hed of the river, where the assault was committed. His Worship reserved judgment, pending the hearing of the next case. J. W. Riley, Chairman of the Collingwoo'd R >&\ Boaid v. Jo'.m H. Richards. — Charge of obstructing a roalway at Ferntown. Mr Ma i.mity for plaintiff, Mr Fell for defendant. Thef. c:s in this c 80 were similar to those of the previous one, Richards having ]lu:el a wire fence acioss a space intei vouing his place and the Ferntown tram ine on t e b ink of the Rua Taniwha river, intercepting a cutting which the ltoad Board had made f >r public traffic iuto : n I o\ t <»f fie r ver. The p i it at i.ss-U! w s win tier Kiohards purciasud the wl o c oi the land to the tramway or whether there was a right- of way reserved for public traffic alongside it. Fur h- plaintiff Boaid. Mr Magmmty producd a plan (which Mr Fell suce s ully objected to) showing ship laid, ff on this sio". by Mr Collins many yoars ''go, in which a road was provided along the tramline He al«o argued that even if lii.-h irds had purchased the land he had dedicated it to the t.ul he by " right of user," in permitting it to be used by the public for so many years. lie called volunnous evidence to prove that the road had been used by the public, ihe wilne ses being Messrs J. Smith, J. W Riley, R. P- Mey, J - Scrimgeour, E Stallard, Jas. \V.. k.r, J. E. Fletcher, and "W Grant. In cross-examination by Mr FtU mot-t of these witnesses admitted that tie/ almost invariably used the tramline i» preference to the roadway alongside, and some of them stated it was hn possible to get along off the tram "lor'tTe defence Mr Fell contended that as Richards' pUi described his land as l„.i„.r '• o.mnued by the tramline there could not be any right-of-way between Jhel no and Richards. He pointed out that on Sui u'B land, on the opposite side oftholmca '-pn-hway-' was specially " ul ... P( j I„ regard to dedication by argued wat to establish a title • ." . .-.,v i coiui.iuou. and umnter-

rupted road must be used from one point to another (i.e. right past Richards' land) and said the fact (admitted by nearly all the witnesses) that t ! ie public were compelled to use the tramline in mtny places was fatal to this contention. He quoted authorities in support of Ins case. and replied at length to tho o quoted by Mr Maginnity. He called defendant who said when he fenced his land it was covered with bush, and he had to put his fence in the most convenient place. He always considered his land was bordered by the iramline, and believed he had fenced right up to the line in some places, while his orchard, sheds and trees must be very close to the line. He said it was impossible for the public to travel along the front of his place without using the tramline, owing to mail) obstructions, overgrowth, etc.

His Worship said he would reserve his decision until he had inspected the locality, and adjourned the case till next sitting for that purpose. The Court rose at G p.m.