The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-10-30 00:00:00

CHAROE OF OBSTRUCTING THE HIGHWAY

AT CRADLEY.

At no Potty Renginni. hel.l et Stourbridste, yesterday,
before B. Littlewood. C. X.,el, .1 Holoroft, rind It. L.
Freer. Thomas Rom T. Solicitor, was churned by
ll:chard flawkerwood, Snrveyor, with unlawfully ob.
atructing a public footpath in Maple 'l'ree Lane, on the
Bth inst. by cau,inu a quantity water to flow.
Mr. nomfrey appeared for the complainant, and Mr.
Perry tree the &lenient.

FTomfrav in opening said there was a highway cal-
led Maple Tree Lane, and a footpath crossed a carriage
mad which leads down to the church, and to some parts
of the town mach used by the poor, and by ladies. Some
time ag t. the defendant bonght a piece of land. There
woo formerly a hedge. The water ran by the side of it.
hat the defendant has since built a wall and stopped the
wator eitnose. an lat times tho road is in a bad State. I
am solicitor to the parish. Defendant in also a solicitor ;
that is why I have not spoken to him about it. A meet-
ing was afterwards held in the Vestry. Since that time
defendant has had a quantity of ashes put down. It is
trite it is not wet now, but ay soon as any rain comes it
will be an had as eter. It did appear to him But the
thing won done sintp!y to annoy. It was a very simple
and foolish thing to do, to keep the whole parish in a
ferment. Mr. Ifornfray then called the attention of the
Bench to the law bearing upon the question, and said
they did not ask for ant penalties, hut simply for a hole
to he cut into defendaiiVv wall to allow the water to pass.
Mr. l'erry said that complainant was asking for defend-
ant to Rive him a right to d-ain into his private ground,
which he should resist. Supposing for one moment
tit. re had been a right of road. tool his friend proved
every word he had said in hi, opening sneech. he should
reonectfudy anhinit the Bench bail no jitrisdietion, as it
was a di:puted right, and was a qule.tion of law; and
read the Act bearing upon the qnestion.
The Bench said they thought they were bound to hear
the eviden

Nob liin;dey said he wac an old inhaldtant of Cradley,
n rat. for Staff. .rdshirc. Ha I been surveyor,
an I ili,i'ewis WV, curse IlOWn the lane Iv, r .inee he
itt known it ; and veviong toll building, it . a very
dry road, but ,inee it had 10-en very Wt. 11, loften
t I to e:trry chi.dren over the water to' ..I
111. a math rood, out IN
the rain came it would be vary Oct and 1.it1,1 ii. 'I
surveyor. he had repaired the road, and o hen Keen's wall
was butt he mode him pull it down because he considered
it on eneroaehnient.

Ceits-exinuijii: Have knows the road for Oily years.
Did not !mow that Ur. Grove had put piping and er the
noel. Do not remenber that gide of the reel being
raked. Did not endows the road no lli tli of October.
I remember the water passing down that road. The
water went through a hedge. I was at a Vestry meeting,
snit the resolntions in the paper were not correct.
Richard Hawkomwood, surveyor, said he was in his 70th
ye iF, and knew the road well. Know the watencourse
whielt is now in the middle of defendat to garden.
I remember defendant buying the laud, and building
wall. Have heard the evidence of Mr. Hing!ey, and
evcry noril is tine in reference to the water-course.
Cross examined ; Hay, seen the defendant shoat the
road. Did not arrango with defendant and Mr Grove to
put down ashes to carry the water away. Did not see
him :dealt it. Do not recollect a rrsolntion being read.
There was a resolution passel by a lot of roughs, brought
there for the pore, ise. Mr. Grove has repaired the road.
There was &notice out on the Church door. I put it on,
sod the dote was altered. I heard a meeting was held
the day it was held. The road is now in a hind firm, wet
or dry. I did not tells man nomad Smith, not to put
down ashes.

_
WiUjani Fferly,rt Rawhswood said he was one of the
snrieynrs, bred end born M Croaky. Have known the
road in quostion. It was formerly good. What I !Awe
ceinio tr, asp l thst tho witter.courso is stopped. The re.
piirs belong to the owners of the propetty. The parish
ha 6 nothing to do with It, _

Crriss.ex-emined The drain formerly went through
the garden ground. MVO known it far 20 or BO year..
I woo at the meeting oil the 600011 a day. I did say the
Overseers would not have anything to do with it. I laid
It belonged to the owners of the land to repair the roads
Do riot remember that the pariah over repaired the road.
Zechariah Willetts said lie lisel known the coo I for
nearly forty yeare, The water sued to run down the aide
of the hedge, and apply itself into a bog. A well has
linen been built, and the road is flooded in conaegneucc.
This being the rase for complainant.
Mr. Perry again urged upon the Bench that it was a
goestion of law, and that it wan a dispute between Mr.
Grove, iin the one ride. arid defendant on the other.
Some time ago, Mr. Grove p it down some pipes to eons
vey the water from his premise., and the defendant built
a wall to stop the water from cron.tig table land,which
Clearly raised a question of title, and was a question Of
Lao'. He shoot I prove by a number of witnesses that the
watcr•caurse hat been stopped for more than 20 years,
who Ii gave the defendant a tit!, to it. He should adur
call witne:ses to prove that the roil was in a better state
than ever it was. On the 29th of September there was 0
heavy storm. and The road was in a bad state. On the
4th o.9olier defsmilaat began to repair it. He should
also provi that a meeting was called for the 11th Oat., at
seven o'clock ; that it was after attended by Ilawkswood.
whirls he had admitted ; and that a resolution was passed
to the effect that the parish would not have anything to
de smith it, and that it was a question for Mr. Grove .d
the defendant to settle; and argued that it was a question
of title.

Emmanuel Roper, of Cradley, said he knew the road
in question, and remembered Mr. Grove building. At
that time he conveyed the water into Mr. Attwood's gut-
ter, across the road. Was at the second parish meeting,
and a reaolation was passed that the parish would not
have anything to do with it, and that Mr. Homer and Mr.
Grove must settle it between thenuwlves.

Edwin Oliver. contractor, acid• he• knew the distriet
well. At the time Hr. Grove built his house he used to
drain his road on to the footpath. The road in question
was in a better state than ever it was since he knew it.
He saw the road on the Bth and 9th instants. It was
then in Rood condition. Had never been inconvenienced
by the road. Was at the public meeting, and heard a
resolution passed that the parish would not entertain the
quostion. which was carried by a large majority, and the
chairman declared it carried.
_

William Smith proved that he woo employed by the
defendant to put some ashes on the road on the Ith inst.
Saw Grove and Hawksford, and Mr. Grove began to put
the ashes into the cart, and he (witness) chucked "
them out again. Was down the road on the sth and sevei.
rot days after. The road was a good one, and ten times
better than ever it was.

This being the case for the defence,
Mr. Hotnfray wanted to reply on a point of law, which
was objected to by Mr. Perry, on the ground that he did
not rep:y at the proper time, and had waived his rig'lt
and that it would be unfair for him to reply after hearing
his evidence.

The Bench arpealiid to Mr. King (their clerk), who
contodered that Mr. Ilomfray had lost the right to reply,
and then retired for a short time to consider their verdict.
On returning. Mr. Noel aaii they had given the case their
best attention, and were of opinion they had no jurisdic-
tion in the case.

Mr. Hominy applied for • ease, which was panted.