Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

LAW COURTS.
MOUNT BARKER POLICE COURT.
Tuesday, October 29.
[Before Messrs. John Paltridge and F. C.
Smith, Js. P.]
- Limited Jurisdiction.
£5 14s. FOR INJURING A GATE.
YOUNG v. SIMCOCK. - John Simcock,
farmer, of Kanmantoo, was charged on the
information of Harry Dove Young that he
did on or about October 22, at near Kanmantoo,
willfully damage a certain gate hung
upon hinges and erected by the said informant
(by the license of the District Council of
Nairne, by virtue of the authority vested by
the 286th section of the District Councils Act
of 1887) across an improved road by the
side of and abutting on sections 31 and 33 in
the district of Nairne.
Mr. L. von Doussa, with Mr. R. D.
Beresford, appeared for the informant. The
defendant explained to the court that he had
not been served with the information until
the previous Saturday and had not been able
to obtain the services of counsel. The case
having been opened by Mr. von Doussa.
Frederick Philp, clerk of the District
Council of Nairne, produced a map of the
district of Nairne and pointed out the road
mentioned in the information. It was an
unimproved road. The license to Mr. Young
was in proper form and bore the seal of the
council and the clerk's signature. On the
23rd inst. he went with Cr. Hoad and met
Mr. Simcock near the gate on the road. The
gate was straight back against the fence, and
placing
it in such a position had injured the
hinges. The bolts were broken, and it would
require a blacksmith to make the gate right
again. Mr. Simcock asked him if the council
could compel him to close the gate, and on
replying "Certainly'' he said he would not
do so until forced to do so by a higher power.
The road was very steep and had ridges of
rock across it, the country being almost
inaccessible. It had never to his knowledge,
been improved.
By Mr. Simcock — The portion of the road
over which I travelled is a good natural one.
Harry D. Young, the informant, said the
defendant was the occupier of the sections
adjoining his, and there was a road between
the properties. The road was rented by him
from the District Council of Nairne, and he
had put up a gate where an old one had been
standing for many years. The old gate had
been taken off its hinges by someone. Wrote
to Mr. Simcock on October 21 and on the
following day re-erected the gate, which was
substantial and on iron hinges. Next saw
the gate on the 23rd, when it was forced back
and the hinges bent and injured. Before
this he saw Mr. Simcock in the road, and
after some conversation the latter said he had
pushed the gate back and would do so as
often as it was shut. It would cost 10s. or
12s. to repair the damage. The road in
question was an unimproved one and except
for about 20 chains could not be used for
traffic. With the gate left open he might be
inconvenienced by the trespass of cattle upon
his land.
By defendant — I have not seen any
improvements on the continuation of the
road.
Hermann Kuchel, of Kanmantoo, in the
employ of Mr. Young, stated that he had
hung the gate referred to across the road and
did it in a workmanlike manner. Saw it on
the following day, when it was lying in a
straight line with the fence; with the hinges
damaged. So far as he knew the road had
never been improved. The gate could not
have been broken without considerable force
being used.
Joseph Hoad, of Springfield, member of
the District Council of Nairne, stated that on
the previous Wednesday he attended, with
Cr. Gahrike and the clerk, to inspect the
road, which was a totally unimproved one,
and they did not propose to spend money
upon it. The gate had evidently been forced
open and damaged. Heard Mr. Simcock say
he had opened the gate and would not shut it
again.
This closed the informant's case. For the
defence
Jacob Simcock, son of the defendant, said
the gate was too heavy for its hinges. A
small piece of the road had been improved,
but the work was done before his time.
By Mr. von Doussa - The cutting spoken
of was not on the road abutting on sections
31 and 33, but was on the west end. Only
saw the gate after it had been pushed back.
John Simcock, the defendant, after going
into the history of the road in question,
admitted that he had thrown open the gate,
but the road was the only thoroughfare
available for him.
Mr. von Doussa said the defendant had
failed to justify his action in taking the law
into his own hands. No defence at all had
been entered, and there was no evidence that
the road had ever been improved.
The defendant asked for an adjournment
and for the court to appoint an independent
man to inspect both the road and the gate.
The court refused the application and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £1
fine, 5s. damages, £1 court costs, £2 8s.
witness fees, and £1 1s. attorney's fee (£5 14s.
in all).
LOCAL CODET.
A GIiAIK TOB EBKT.
- MIELS v. CHAMBERLAIN. - Claim for £3 3s.,
rent due on oottage at Littleharapton. Mr.
von Dousea for plaintiff^ Jir. Beresford for
defendant. *£.«•• • • •
- ; Edwin HieUj the plejid(£i& gave /evidence
as tothe rental-of^the prdpwrty to defendant,
wlioliad never paid the debt now sought to
be recovered. Examined by Mr. Beresford,
lie'said-he had let the oottage to Mrs;
Chamberlain, but made: this claim against her
:hgsbaod, regarding them Jgeth-as'-hi* tenants.
The record ; of payments the dates when
received, liad been kept <ih the account-book
.produced.
: > The defence' was a complete denial of the
validityoflhe claim.
- ' After Hearing the statements of the parties
and listening to counsel the Bench gave a
vCrdiot for £113a.Ad., plaintiff and defendant
eaoh paying his own costs.
$