MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Northern Advocate, 23 September 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr T. Scott-Smith, S.M.)

J. R. Kershaw (Mr Harrison) Wis charged'on the information of C. ii\ Hardy (Mr Steadman) with leaving a gate, placed across a public road at Ruatangata, open on September 10th. The information was laid under Section 28 of the Fencing Act.

Charles Frederick Hardy said he was the occupier of certain sections, and had been given permission by the County Council to erect swing gates. Mr Kershaw, who was a butcher, usually passed through the gates on Saturdays. Mr Steadman was questioning witness about defendant leaving the gate open, when Mr Harrison admitted that his client had done this, and Mr Steadman did not continue h:s examination.

By'Mr Harrison: There was one gate erected on the road without authority There was patent mechanism attached to the gate to facilitate the opening and closing. It could be opened without difficulty or' the least danger There were three gatei, within about three-quarters of a mile. The ro id was only a bridle one,, and no more than half a dozen people used it. He had seen Mr Kershaw and urged h';n to be neighborly and friendly by clrising the gates after him. Mr Kershaw replied that he and two or three others had agreed to leave the gale open, and witness then told him tint he would have to take proceedings.

Mr Harrison pointed out that section 28 of the Fencing Act had to be read in conjunction with the Public Works Act, section 124 of which allowed the local authority having jurisdiction over a road to grant permission to .erect a swing gate. He held that the Court had not been satisfied that the Whangarei County Council, which, in this case, granted permission to erect the gates, was the body controlling this particular road. He further contended that the provisions of Section 28 of the Fencing Act had not been complied with in that the gate was dangerous.

The defendant said there were four gates on the informant's proper-,y. There were two gates within a cha'n of each other, at either end of a bridge. One gate, erected witho.it authority, was in a different place fo that, which existed prior to Hr Hardy's time, the old gate having be -n destroyed and a new one erected. The gate was a nuisance to the public, a.id he had deliberately left it open ad a protest against its existence.

By Mr Steadman: He was not aw ire that by using the road he was trespassing on Mr Hardy s property. Ke believed that Mr Hardy's property was within the Whangarei County. Tie would swear that the fourth gate wis on the public road. The gate veerected by Mr TOrshaw, for which no authority had been obtained, was within 9 feet of the original gate.

Matthew Dwyer said the gate Mr Kershaw was charged with not closiug was objectionable in that it closed'before a horse could get through. It could be easily opened by man, wonun, or "child. ' The defendant was convicted and fined £1 without, costs. CLAIM FOR £200. Kaka Akarana (Mr Briggs) v. Doi>ald McKenzie, a claim for £200. The hearing was adjourned on the application of Mr Briggs till next court da> A COMPLICATED CASE. T. Morrjs (Mr Briggs) v. R. Nathan (Mr Killen) a claim for £19 10s sd. The claim was for goods supplied and the case had been previously before the Court, on which occasion one of the witnesses called stated that he, with others, and not the defendant, was responsible for the payment of the goods. The magistrate then adjourned the case so that promissary notes for the amount of the account could be obtained from those Halve. Those concerned —all Natives —had, with the exception of one, agreed to give the promissory notes, and the emaining one, being asked in Court, aKo consented to give his note of hand that he would meet his part of the obligation.

Mr Briggs said that none of the natives had yet given promissa.'y notes.

The case was adjourned for one month, His Worship stating that if the money was not paid before thai judgment would be given against Nathan, who had made himself liable in the first instance, and admitted ]\m liability to the extent of £2 9s.