Auckland Items.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5803, 17 December 1886, Page 2

Auckland Items.

BREACHES OF THE LICENSING- ACT*

LIABILITY OF COUNTY COUN^TLS - A HOLE IN THE ROAD, Ai«7l> ITS COST.

[Special to the " Stab."]

AUCKLAND, Dec. 17. In the charge of Sunday selling againßt Hubert Oram yesterday, Mr Laishley, in opening the case for the prosecution, said it was notorious that many miscarriages of justice had happened lately in connection with licensing prosecutions, and there was room for the gravest suspicion that witnesses were tampered with before they came to Court.

An important decision to local authorities was given by Mr Seth Smith, 8.M., to-day, in the case of E. Harrow v. the Waitemata County Council. This was aclaim for £5 damages, on account of a bad rat in a road recently formed. It was

shown that the plaintiff knew of the existence of the rut, and had not made a Complaint before the accident. His WorBbip said the case of Pascoe v. the Port Levy Road Board (New Zealand Law Reports, May, 1886), distinctly settled the liability of the defendants. The road in question in the present case being a newlymade one, and the fact of the Council not having a few loads of scoria near the place for the purpose of filling in any holes that might be made, was sufficient evidence of negligence on their part. No evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff was adduced, and therefore judgment would be for JE3 and costs. Mr Hugh Campbell, defendants solicitor, asked and obtained leave to appeal.