GORSE ON ROADSIDE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 268, 13 November 1945, Page 6

GORSE ON ROADSIDE

LEGAL ARGUMENT AS TO FARMERS’ LIABILITY MAKIRIKIRI ROAD AREA Legal argument on the question of 'a farmer’s liability for clearing gorse from the road alleged to be abutting on to his property was heard before Mr. J. H. Salmon. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday when the Wanganui County Council proceeded against James McKnight, charged witii failing to comply with an order requiring him to grub all obstructions to traffic and drainage arising from gorse growing on the Makirikiri Valley Road. Mr. A. A. Barton appeared for the Wanganui County and Mr. J. S. D, Tfeard represented defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Decision was reserved. Mr. Barton submitted that Section 170 of the Public Works Act gave the local body authority to order an occupier or owner of land to cut down grub out all obstructions Io traffic or drainage up to the middle line of the road fronting his property. A notice requiring defendant to carry out this work was served on May 23, last. The county engineer, Mr. R. R. Dawson, said defendant was the owner of property which had a frontage to the Makirikiri Valley Road. Gorse growing along this frontage was encroaching on to the road. The locality was inspected a week ago, but nothing had been done toward eradicating the gorse. Mr. Tizard: It is a fact, is it not, that the Makirikiri Stream divides defendant’s property from the road? Witness: Yes. In reply to the magistrate, witness added that the gorse was not very bad. The stream touched the road in some places. The magistrate: I am wondering why the County Council should choose a property of this sort. There must be others more infested with gorse. Mr. Barton submitted that proceedings had already been taken against certain other owners.

Mr. Tizard submitted that defendant had no case to answer as the land did not abut on the road.

“My submission is that the stream is the boundary between the land and the road, therefore defendant's title goes up to the middle of the stream,” said Mr. Barton. In all places where rhe stream touched the land, that land abutted on to the road. Defendant must have a frontage on the road, otherwise he could not get a legal title.

The magistrate: I am still wondering why the county has taken a case of this kind while there are others that must be stronger. Presuming defendant is liable, he is liable for only a few points where the land abuts* on to the road.

Mr. Barton: We have taken action against other owners and we are morally bound to take action against thu defendant.

“Before a property can abut on to a road it must have physical contact with it,” said Mr. Tizard.

After further legal argument the magistrate intimated that he would reserve his decision, and perhaps visit the locality.

Before the Court rose Mr. Barton said defendant was p good farmer who kept his land clear inside the fence.