BROOM AND GORSE

Matamata Record, Volume XIX, Issue 1787, 30 November 1936, Page 5

BROOM AND GORSE

FARMERS FINED County Council Prosecutions ’ r . _ '• u : A . vigorous denial that the inspector had seen either his propefty or himself was made by Thomas Hampton, who, with Robert Hampton, was prosecuted by the Mataihata County Council’s noxious weeds inspector for failing to maintain f ,their property at Te Poi' free from ■''broom, a noxious weed in the coun;‘TJ ty. Defendant pleaded not guilty. ’ ■ The inspector said the offence re- £■ ' ferred to the period August 21 to ■October 31. The road ran through the property, and both road front- " :ages were badly infested, while the

Roadway was somewhat restricted, | When the matter was referred to defendant he became very abusive, but eventually agreed ,to do the work; \ .tloweVer, nothing. had; been doiie by. yOitober. *’ a,. 1 " * Defendant ;4ithei: he or bis brother ha# se&Tv the inspector dilus ydar, and Tie said thay had - been , b ’‘clearing brooni for' years. He: laid Iblarhe for the heavy infestation upm t -on’ an adjacent area administered by f :the County Council, whence, millions npri'i 'of seeds were allowed to spread an-

inually. ' He. had been, dealing with ragwort and other more - urgent tp fworks and was short of labour. The -broom was riot * getting worse, and vthe prosecution was unjust. Defend- ' • D' iarit expressed a grievance against ’* the inspector and the County Council, but the magistrate recommended to take this up with .the council if his feeling was so strong. * Defendants were convicted and fined 10s each and costs. Gorse Unchecked . The opinion that he should not be called upon to clear land between his boundary line and the centre line of the road, as he did not occupy that area, was expressed by J. A. Brown, farmer, of Waharoa, who was prosecuted ior failing, to keep his property free from gorse, a noxious weed in the Matamata county. Aji- Mr. A. L. Mason said defendant had failed to clear his land as in- , structed jn a notice served by the inspector. , The inspector said he was not as . concerned about the farm as he was ' ; about the frontage. There an area of about two acres was in gorse. Defendant had become particularly abusive when this was mentioned,, and he said he had no intention of clearing it. Two previous notices had been served. The clearance would not have taken long. Both sides of - the road had been bad, but the other owner concerned had cleared his ” , area. '&■ Defendant said he had cleared the ■: % land inside his boundary, but not much of the frontage, which was not his land. The magistrate said defendant had admitted he had not done what the ‘ & law required. Defendant was convict- , ed and fined £1 and costs. ‘g " / - - ~ ■- : re j