A ROAD CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10661, 2 June 1913, Page 6

A ROAD CASE.

At the Palinerston Supreme Court on Saturday William Euterpe Gibbs, farmer, of Eatu, proceeded against Emmanuel Picki'ord, fanner, of Patea, for an injunction and £lO damages. Mr Colling appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Carrie for defendant.

Plaintiff claimed that he held a title to 45 acres 10 perches, Ta.rnketi, under native lease of 21 years. Defendant occupied adjoining land, and (plaiuriil' alleged) had trespaaed on plaintiff's land. On February 31st, 19dj, plaintiff served defendant with a notice requiring Jiita to refrain from trespassing, but defendant continued to do so. Damage was suffered by plaintiff breaking dowj fences and treading down grass. Therefore plaintiff applied for an injunction to prevent defendant from trespassing; also damage to

the ain omit of £lO. For the defence, it; was denied \ that tlie plaintiff was entitle.'! to j tbu exclusive use of the .section. Defendant set up u to pass through this land, and denied hav• iiig received a notice from plaintiff ! forbiddin;; his access: he ol.so donisd I having broken down isnv.es or trod- !| den tiowu grass, or that the plaintiff I had suffered any damage. Del'eudI aiit held that there was a public 1 highway over plaintiff's section to a church and burying ground, to be used by pedestrian?, horses and I vehicles. As a gate was wrongfully I erected on this highway defendant j neeesarily broke the leek of if in I order to use the route, Defendant !' also alleged that the plaintiff had notice of tiie existence of his highway before he became tenant of the land.

I Evidence was given by S A. R | I-lair, engineer for the, I County Council, who stated that tiie 8 road claimed by the defendant was j not a county road, and no money I had been spent on if: for the past 14 I yean*. The eormty did not exercise S tiuv jurisdiction over fclia £ates. | John Barry, settler, of Rsta, gave | corroborative evidence. I The plainr.iff stated that he had | been acquainted with the locality 1 for SO years past. He had: never I been to ■■> chyrch service in tiie par-

Itieular locality, and did not remember such a service being hold there; j tiie place where the church used to !he wis now covered with broom f and gorse. He had told defendant to stop trespassing on his (plainj tiff's ) property, unless ha kej.it She I path-in order, prevented his stock j from wandering from the path, and j erected a fence on each side of it. Witness and defendant a»reed to gates beiua; erected on the track, but j wiieu witness went to hand the keyn j to defendant, the latter refused to j accept them, saying that his neppi--1 hours had informed hi in that plaiai tiff bad no right to close the road.. j In reply to His Honour, plaintiff < stated that tha road led to a Maori cemetery. s Cross-examined, witness se.id the object-in briui.p'ng tiie action was i to stop the general public from I crossing his property.

•John W. Marshall stated isi evi- { ileuco that in the "thirties" the i path was a. Maori bash track from | Taupo to t!io i J orov/a pa, j John surveyor also gave { evidence ami produced a plan oil the 5 locality. j At this st-iiga the case wan by | mntai consent adjourned 10 Wangu- ] mii.