A NEW BRIGHTON FEUD.

THE NEW BRIGHTON TRAMWAY

COMPANY v. MRS. KNIGHT. At the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr Neave, J.P., and Mr E. O'Connor, J.P., Mrs Charlotte Knight and her son, John Knight, were charged by the manager of the New Brighton. Tramway Company that they did maliciously remove a notice board that was placed on the New Brighton Tramway Company's land at its intersection, of iJercley's Road, end upon which board Uiere was tacked a printed notice, viz, " Private right-of-way only," contrary to sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Police Offences Act, 1884.

Mr Weston appeared on behalf of the Tramway Company, and Mr Scott for the accused.

Mi- Scott admitted, that as a matter of fact, the defendants did remove Ihs signpost.

Mr Weston then outlined the facts of the case. Mr Thompson, the Linwood Tramway Company's manager, had, between 1 and 3 p.m. on March 1, caused a tramway rail to be embedded five feet in the ground, and a. notice bolted to the top secting out that it was a private right-of-way only. The spot where the tramway rail was sunk was the private property of the company, and no one had right to tresp^s* thereon. The driver of the 5.15 tram, whon passing the spot on the same day, saw Mrs Knight and her son industriously digging the rail out. The son was doing the manual labour, while Mrs Knight was superintending the operations. The drivei, who, no doubt, had learnt caution by previous experience, did not attempt to stop .the work, but drove on. The driver on the next tram, in passing the spot, saw the rail lying on the ground and the notice Board broken inro splinters. The road over which part of vhe New Brighton section of the tramway lnus runs is not a public one, and it was necessary to erect gates at each boundary to conserve the rights of the company over the land, and take other measures to prevent its bains made a public thoroughfare. Mr Thompson, manager of the Tram way Company, gave evidence. Mr Scott: Do you remember about two ye;irs ago putting up a sign-board, and it being knocked down by Mrs Knight? Witness : Well, we have put up so many, every one of which has been knocked down, that the question is a difficult one to answer unless you give more definite data.

George M'lntyre, managing director of tho Tramway Company, - said that in consequenee^ of frequent disagreements with Mrs Knight, the company had given her a limited right-of-way over the line, but where tho pest was sunk there was no right-of-way to anyone. The reason there had been no proceedings taken about the previous uprooting of the company's signposts was that, althouirh they were certain of *the offender, they did not have enough Sroof to bring a case into Court. Tne ;:ed granting the provisional right-of-way was signed, and the defendants must have known they were bound by it. Mrs Knight : It's a fraud. John Knight : It's the biggest fraud ever written.

Mrs Knight: Yes, and if Mr Beetham was here he would know what to do with it. He would know that it was a fraud.

Learned counsel here dexterously piloted Mrs Knight backwards into her chair, and spoke soothingly to her. Fcr the defence, Mr Scott admitted that the defendants had no light whatever to knock the post down, but said they had do»e so under a mistaken idea of their legal rights.

Airs Knight deposed that she recollected about two years ago breaking a post down which Jiad been erected by the Tramway Company. After doing so, slie stopped the tram, and gave Mr M'lntyre a. letter advising him, of her action and the reason which hu£ prompted her in resorting to the measure. As there had been no action taken, she was under the impression that she was in her legal right. She took the papers to Mr Beetham and showed him.

Mr Weston: Just one question, Mrs Knight.

Mrs Knight : Yes. Nice man you are ! Mr Weston : Did you sign the papers?

Mrs Knight : I never asked no man for a penny, and I have reared fifteen children ; more than you can say. Mr Scott asked the Bench to make the penalty as light as possible. The defendant was, he said, now fully aware that she was cluing wrong. She was in very impecunious circumstances.

Mrs Knight : Oh, don't apologise for me ; I can't bear it !

The Bench fined accused 10s each, and costs £2 16s.

Mrs Knight: What a cruel tiling! Oh, it's simply given away. .Oh, we'll have it before Mr Beetham.

John Knight (sympathetically) : Yes, we'll have it before Mr Beetham.

Mrs Knight (with asperity) : Hold your tonpiie! Oh, you've done it, Mr Scott; you've done it all yourself. None of the witnesses claimed expenses. The Bench allowed the defendants a fortnight in which to pay the fines.