RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 4627, 16 April 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, April 15, — Before C. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M. WINKS V. COUNTY COUNCIL.

This was a claim for £3 damages which the plaintiff, on the 14th December, 1883, sustained through injuries to one of his cattle by reason of the defective state of a bridge on the Richmond Road. Mr. Roy appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Samuel for the defendants.

An admission was made by tho defendants as to the fact of the injuries having been sustained by the defectiveness of the bridge. The defence was as follows :—: — (1). That the road named is not a County Road; (2). That the nature of the Counties Act is not such as to make the defendants liable in the manner that they are Bought to be made liable in thisaotion ; (3). That the defendants have kept in good repair a road leading to the Bame places as the Richmond Road, and not of a greater length. Aod that the defendant should have driven his cattle by that road instead of the Richmond Road. Further, that the County Council have no funds wherewith, to keep ia repair the road in question ; neither had they any means of receiving funda for that purpose.

Mr. Roy argued that the defence set up waa futile, as the road had been publicly declared a county road, and ho produced gazette notice. That tha County was liable for any negligence on their part in maintaining the roads under their control, nnd if any road was in a dangerous state they had power under the Act to close the same from public traffic. With regard to the defendants having no funds that was no excuse, as they toolc'over the road voluntarily, and they should have previously ascertained the state of their finances. The Council had tbe power 'of raising funds, and it was incumbent on them as a Corporation that they should take care that the roads are ia good repair. [Here he cited several cases supporting this viow.] Mr. Samuel argued that the liability of tho Council depended upon the nature of the funds at their disposal, and quoted in support of this contention from Addison *n Torts, page 262. He would be ablo to show that the resolution declaring a road a county road was on the 4th December, 1882, rescinded. The circumstances under which the Richmond Road fell into disrepair were these : — The County Council were unable to get a sum of money under the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Construction Act for the purpose of putting the Richmond Road in repair, but the Council obtained money to make another road running between the same points, i.'?., between the Mountain Road and Waitara, and that they had discountenanced the use of the Richmond Road since the other road had been put in repair. He therefore contended that if the plaintiff chose to use the Richmond Road when there was another road in good repair, it wus at his own risk. After hearing the arguments of counsel, His Honor reserved judgment.