IS CARLTON CORNER A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17835, 1 May 1926, Page 8

IS CARLTON CORNER A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE?

To the Editor. Sir, —I am not a lawyer, and I believe Mr E. H. Andrews is not one either, and therefore we are not competent to answer the above questions, though, of course, we are each entitled to our own opinions. The date of that piece of land referred to will go back to the date when the Province of Canterbury was founded. My recollections go back to 1859, and in that year and the five years following I lived in the immediate locality, and ever since then that part has been under my close observation, and I never knew it to be built on or even fenced; in fact, I don’t believe a fence has ever been erected on that frontage. My first recollections of a building being erected would be about 1862 or 1863, and then it was erected on the same line of frontage as it is to-day. It was about 1863 that Mr George Oram obtained a license for that house, and that he

held on into 1865. Of that date I am sure, and I am under the impression the public had established their right to use that short cut and convenience before the Land Transfer Act came into force; and I am also under the impression that it is not possible to convey any portion of a public highway to a private person and bring it under the L.T. Act to hold good for all time. If it was possible to convey portions of a highway in that way, what would the state of affairs be ? No street would be in a straight line. This brings me back to between twenty and thirty j r ears ago, when I formed a committee whose aim was to establish the people’s right to use what was known as a “towing path” on the north of the Avon just south of Carlton Mill Road. This track had never been open to the public, and was usurped by some who had bought sections backing on to it. It took us about two years before we could get the St Albans Council to move in the matter. My committee put itself in communication with the Surveyor-General, and we eventually won, and the road was opened, and after a survey was made it was found the full complement of the roacf was not there, and it was contended that some portions of the path had been included in one or more of the sections that had been bought and which had been brought under the Land Transfer Act. The SurveyorGeneral wrote and told the committee if that could be proved the land would have to be returned to the road or path. L.T.A. notwithstanding. (I have a copy of that letter, but at present I cannot lay my hand on it.) If that was the law at that time it must be so to-day. Of course, I know boundaries brought under the provisions of the L.T.A. are absolutely binding for all time, but that can only apply to the division of sections, but it surely cannot apply to the boundaries on the public highways. However, I think this is a matter that should be submitted to the Solicitor-General or some other legal authority.—l am, etc., > R. B. GREEN.