S.M. COURT.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 18, Issue 12, 8 February 1907, Page 4

S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, sth February. Before T. Scott Smith, Esq., S.M. NOXIOUS WEEDS. The Magistrate gave his decisions in the cases reserved from last Court day. The first was that of Teresa Briggs. The S.M, stated that he had had an opportunity of inspecting the locality in respect of which the charges were made, and he considered defendant was guilty of failing to clear the blackberries. She would be fined 10s, and costs. Ths case against the Road Board was dealt with at length, and his Worship delivered the following judgment: — This information is laid under "The Noxious Weeds Act, 1900," by Mr Moore, the Inspector appointed under that Act for the Provincial District of Marlbo-ough. against Mr Matthews, the Secretary ot the Pelorus Road Board; for inasmuch as the said Board being the occupier of certain land, to wit: certain river frontages vested in the Board, did not in every year commence and continuously thereafter clear the same of blackberry and sweet briar, being noxious weeds within the meaning of «• The Noxious Weeds Act, 1900," and that he Mr Matthews, afier notice" failed to comply with the terms of said notice. The Road Board Act of 18S2 provides that the Clerk or Chairman can rep esent the Board in all Court proceedings. Mr Matthews, on behalf, of the Board, raised the question of the Board's jurisdiction over said lands, and that the Board had been denied the right to" le ise these areas. The Board objected to being forced into the position of being denied the right to sell the flax or timber on these areas or to lease them, and of being compelled to clear off the noxious weeds. The facts are, shortly: that along the western bank of the Rai Stream there has been reserved by the Crown a narrow strip of land. This reserve is laid out and marked on the record maps as a road within the meaning of Section 101, "Public Works Act, 1905;" The survey map produced is the record map. I am satisfied that the Reserve being a road the Pelorus Road Board, having jurisdiction thereover, has power to lease the same: see "Public Bodies Powers Act, -1887," "Amendment Act, 1891." Section 9of " The Noxious Weeds Act, 1900," runs as follows: "Every occupier of land shall in every year commence and continuously thereafter shall do all things necessary in order to effectually clear the same, and for that purpose shall, to the satisfaction of the Inspector, clear his land of noxious weeds." The term " noxious weeds " includes blackberry and sweet briar, whilst Section 3 provides that where land abuts on a road or,is intersected by a road the boundaries of the land on each side of the road shall for the purposes of this Act relating 10 the clearing of noxious weeds be deemed to be extended to the centre ofthe road, and the occupier of the land shall accordingly be deemed to be the occupier of so much of the road as is within the extended boundaries. The road as surveyed is bounded on its eastern side by the Rai River, and on its western side by the owners of the lands abutting thereon, but whose lands it is not alleged are affected with noxious weeds. The defendant Board is therefore for the purposes of the Act treated as the occupier of half the width of the road as bounded by the Rai River. If an occupier fails in his duty to clear the weeds he may be notified by the Inspector, and if he fails to comply with the terms of that notice he is liable tn a penalty. It is to be observed, however, that the duty to clear is absolute and does not depend on the inspectorial notice—that notice is only given to occupiers in default: that is those who have failed in their duty in that they have not complied with the terms of Section 9. Inasmuch as the defendant Board was for the purposes of the Noxious Weeds Act at the time this information was laid in occupation of the road in question, and as noxious weeds were growing thereon, the Road Board was nut only justified but bound to take all reasonable steps necessary to clear the road ; and it must not be overlooked in this connection that Section 9 enjoins not only deliberate but continuous work. The road in question is a district road, and as such is in the occupation and under the control and management of the Pelorus Road Board.. I had not the advantage of having the case argued b-.fore me by counsel, but, after a careful perusal of the statutes and the decisions bearing on the question at issue, I am of opinion that the road in question, being a portion of the main arterial district road between Blenheim and Nelson, and under the care, control and management of the? defendant Board, and having a river frontage "vested" in and in occ 'pation of the defendant Board, the Clerk or Secretary of the said Board will be convicted and fined ten shillings and costs. I am not called upon to decide the question whether or not the Pelorus Road Board has the power of leasing the land in question'W disposing of the flax growing thereon, but if I had had to decide the question I should answer it in the affirmative.

Mr Matthews asked if the Board could appeal, and was informed thai; they could. CIVIL OASES. A large number of civil cases was listed, but most of them were settled out of Court. The Pelorus Guardian Co., Ltd., sued James Hughes, Pelorus Valley, for the sum of £7 15s, subscription to the paper for a number of years. Defendant claimed that he had; in 1898, ordered the paper fir three months, and had then asked that it be stopped. He produced two letters showing that his desire to stop the paper was known to the then Manager. He admitted that he read the paper and had never? refused delivery. Mr Taylor (for the Company) stated he had written to Mr Hughes, asking him if he desired tbe paper stopped, but defendant had not replied • on numerous occasions Mr Hughes had been in Havelock but he had never asked that the paper be stopped. The S.M.' contended that the letters produced seemed to show that Mr Hughes had asked that the paper be stopped, but as an honourable man he should pay a large proportion of the amount claimed, seeing that he bad had the benefit of the paper for nearly seven years. Mr Hughes offered':£l, which was refused, and eventually the case was adjourned till next Court day. Judgment for plaintiff was given in the case of the Guardian Company against E, G. Gibson, of Tua Marina, claim for £4. Several old-age pension cases having been dealt with, the Court adjourned,-