SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7414, 28 May 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, May 28. (Before His -Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) brewer v, DUXJT. This case was an appeal from the decision of.the Stipendiary Magistrate, in the case of C. E. Brewer, Engineer to the Waimata County Council, against H. W. Dunn. The appellant, Brewer, made an order, in accordance with Section 135 of the Publio Works Act, 1894, for the respondent to remove all obstructions to traffic on the road abutting on his land, such obstructions arising from the growth of gorse. The facts proved were that gorse was growing on the respondent's land, and on.the road in question, and the appellant, in his evidence in the Lower Court, gave it as his opinion that the gorse had spread from lhe respondent's land. The latter gave no evidence nor suggestion to the contrary. The Magistrate held that it must be proved that the gorse actually spread from the respondent's land, relying on the decision of ( Chief Justice Prendergast, in the case of Barnes v. Nixon- 17, N.Z. Law Reports, p. 95. Mr Kippenberger •appeard) for the appellant, and the respondent was nofc represented. ' Mr Kippenberger said his contention was that on the evidence, as found by the Magistrate, there ought to have been a conviction. His Honor said that he had to try only a question of law. Mr Kippenberger said that it would be a question of law as to whether or not the evidence justified a conviction, and whether or not there ought to have been a conviction. Prom the facts of the evidence, it was a necessary inference that the gorse did spread from the respondent's premises on t-o the road, and that, if so, the defendant was bound to obey the order. His Honor said that he would fake time to consider his decision.