MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19034, 11 June 1924, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL ACTION FOR TRESPASS. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. At” the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. J. S. Barton S.,M. William John Polson, farmer, took action against Reginald Crawford Dunlop for trespass upon his property at Mang'awhero. The plaintiff, in evidence, deposed that he was the owner of the Mangawhero East block of property. At about 2.p.m. on April 10 last ho was at his’ main gate when the defendant came along on horseback. He attempted to open the gate, and witness informed him he had no right to do so. However, ho made no answer, and proceded to open the gate. He later said that the road had Deen a public one for years, but witness declared that he knew perfectly well that it had not. The defendant had been employed as a sharemilKer by witness, but had been dismissed. The defendant in cross-examining witness, suggested that the road had been a public one for fifty years. Witness: That is ridiculous. It has only been open the last thirteen years. ..The defendant: Did I do any damage?—l am not suggesting that you did, but I did not want you there. The defendant pointed out that Maoris and others used the road, and the plaintiff had not complained to them. His Worship explained that even if others did use the road, if the plaintiff objected to the defendant using it, he should not have trespassed upon it. To His Worship the defendant said that he did not deny that he had trespassed upon the property. In evidence he said that he rode through the gate, and when he was inside it the plaintiff ran across the road and said: “You have no right to go through there!” Witness said he replied: “All right,” and rode on. He took the shortest road home owing to his dogs being tired. He said he assisted the engineer to lay down the road upon which he trespassed, and thought it was a public one. He had done no damage whatever. Counsel: You knew there was some unpleasantness between yourself and your former employer?—l did! You knew he did not want you on his property?—l knew he owed me a considerable amount of money. Still you went through the property?—Yes! My dogs were tired, and I did not want to be drawn into a squabble. His Worship said it was quite clear that the plaintiff was entitled to object to the defendant trespassing on his property. He would fix a nominal penalty of £l, in order to vindicate the plaintiff’s right to prevent paople from using the road. Costs totalled £5 6s 6d. The defendant considered that the plaintiff should meet some of the expenses as he (the defendant > liad been forced to come to the Chu'.t on three occasions in connection with the case. His Worship: To defend your own action is a risky business. You have shown a ■ certain amount of obstinancy in this matter and yo.i will have to meet the costs.