THE Poverty Bay Independent. Published every Tuesday Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, August 25, 1885.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 40, 25 August 1885, Page 2

THE Poverty Bay Independent. Published every Tuesday Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, August 25, 1885.

The decision given in the case Clark v. Muldoon, in the R.M. Court oh Friday last has given rise to much dissatisfaction amongst a large number of people who consider the judgment to be at variance with the main weight of evidence given in Court. There cannot be two opinions as to the illogical reasoning set forth in the decision which premises that providing the river is not a tidal one where “ the tide flows and reflows ” it necessarily follows that it must belong to the plaintiff. The Bench seemed to totally ignore the important and conclusive fact that the plan of the Crown Grant as produced in Court, clearly showed that the plaintiff's right only extended to the high bank of the river. Under ordinary circumstance one would have thought that this fact in itself would have been fatal to the claim set up by the plaintiff, especially when no attempt whatever was made to produce any documentary writings which could be pitted against such incontestable evidence. Even supposing that, instead of the weight of evidence being in favor of the flow and reflow of the stream —as we most certainly believe it was—it had been the reverse, there was not one tittle of evidence adduced to substantiate the claimants title to the bed of the river. Looking at the subject from this point of view, the decision seems all the more extraordinary. The matter is one of considerable importance to the whole public, and it behoves our public bodies to move in the matter. We would suggest, therefore, that the Attorney-General’s opinion be taken on the subject. In common fairness to the whole County this should be done. With respect to the County Council it would appear that it has, as usual, taken up a position diametrically opposed to the public interests which should be its first care to protect. In replying to a communication from Mr Muldoon asking the Council to assist him in asserting the public’s right to the gravel, that august body says “that as the case does not directly interfere with any work of the Council, they will not not take any action in the matter, particularly as the Council can, upon giving twenty-four hours notice, take the gravel, and the question of compensation would be left to arbitration. The letter needs no comment beyond saying that it is evident that the Council, especially the two Councillors who were witnesses for the claimant in the case, are apparently anxious to squander the public funds in compensation for that which in right and law is public property. The action of the Council together with the decision in the R.M. Court, has done much to increase a feeling of insecurity and mistrust which is gradually and surely gaining ground day by day, and which will doubtless before long work a remedy by removing some of the incubus which at present attaches to the cause of justice and fairplay in any case where Wool v. the Public is concerned.