LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7914, 5 April 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings.

Monday. [Before Bis Honor Mr., Justice. Ward.]

New Zealand Stud ajjd Pediqreb Stock Co." v. Fhedk. Nblsok George.—Claim for £116 5s for calls. Mr. Button appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defence. Mr. Cooper said that a special arrangement had been made by which the defendant had consented to confess judgments execution to be stayed until the June sittings, when a case of F. N. George.v. the Company would be heard, and the real question at issue would be fought out. The adjournment was granted. W. J. COURTNKY V. K, JbNKINSON.— This was a claim for the possession of certain machinery, and for £50 damages, Mr. Mackeohnie appeared for the plaintiff. No defence was filed, and judgment was entered up for the plaintiff for the posseasioa of the machinery only, the claim for damages being abandoned. Gkokgb Herbert v. James Walter Waller.—This was an action to recover £303 14s 6d, value of goods supplied. By consent, this case was allowed to stand over until the June sittings of the Court. Hospital and Charitablk Aid Boabd V. Geo. Andrews.—This was a claim that a certain deed be declared void. Mr. Theo. Cooper, who appeared for the plainiiff, announced that the case was settled. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward and a jury of four.} PiPi Tβ Ngahoru v. the Mercer Road Board. —This was an action to recover £200 damages for trespass. Mr. Tylden appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper, instructed by Messrs. Thome and Kigby, for the defence. The case for the plaintiff, as shown by the opening address of Mr. Tylden, and subsequently supported by the evidence of the plaintiff (a Maori woman) and other witnesses, was as follows:—The trespass consisted of the removal of a certain boundary fence from plaintiff's land, situated on the Mercer side of the Waikato river. The Crown grant showed a road between the de. fendants , land (Lot 90) and the Waikato River, but since the issue of that grant in 1881, the action of the water had washed away the portion shown as a road oa the Crown grant, and a portion of it was now the bed of the river, so that the lot in places had a frontage to the river. The plaintiff fenced in up to her boundary, but the defendants interfered with this fence on the southern boundary of the lot, and had it removed, the result of which was that the plaintiff's crops were destroyed. The pleadings for the plaintiff alleged that she was the owner and occupier of the land in question, and had fenced it in, that in 1886 the defendants, against , her will and consent, took up a portion of the fence and depoeited it on plaintiff's land, and that by the action of the defendants plaintiff had sustained damages. She claimed £150 damages for the trespass aud £50 special damages for injury to her crops by trespass of stray animals. The pleadings for the defence admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of Lot 90. They denied all the other allegations, and for a further defence set out that the defendants were the road board of the district, and were entitled to exercise the powers con» ferred on them by the ILoad Boards Act, and the Public Works Act. That the defendant erected on the read a certain fence, and thdy gave her due notice to remove it. She failed to comply with the notice, or to remove the fence, and the defendants in the exercise of the powers vested in them caused bhe fence to be removed off the road. Mr. Hammond was sworn interpreter, and the plaintiff was called and examined at some length in support of the statemsnt of claim. William Clark, railway engineer, Waihi, a native, and Robert Farmer, chairman of the Highway Board, were examined, and then the question of the right to keep a roadway open after a certain portion was washed* away by going on adjoining land waa argued. Numerous cases were quoted bv Mr. Cooper in support of his contention. Mr. lylden replied, contending that the cases quoted bad no bearing on the present action, and after some argument he said that the plaintiff was quite willing that the road should be taken under the Public Works Act on compensation being paid. Mr. Cooper pointed oat that this only arose when thero was no road, but ra this case the right of the road was reserved along the banks of the river. In the course of argument it transpired that the total amount of fence removed was 42 feet, 10 feet of which was a portion of the original road. His Honor ruled that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. She had fenced in to the river bank, and the Crown grant must be subject to the right-of-way, and if the river washed away a portion of the road the public was entitled to a corresponding portion on adjoining land, and if any cattle entered it was not the fault of the defendant. Both parties appeared to have acted without a doe knowledge of their rights. The plaintiff was wrong in fencing in the road. Mr. Cooper asked for costs on the lower scale, but His Honor did not think it was a case in which costs shonid be allowed. Ihe jury were then discharged. The Court then adjourned until ten ® clock next morning.