43 
UNFREQUEN TED FIELD-PA THS. 
merely a private and not a public way, and that anyone getting 
over the gate is liable to an action for trespass. But this gate 
does not appear to have been locked or fastened for the express 
purpose of keeping the public out altogether. It was stated 
that at times when litter was cut, the gate was sometimes 
fastened to prevent the litter being surreptitiously taken away. 
.\part from this, however, my own experience leads me not to 
place too much reliance upon the evidence of a locked gate. 
The latter is, as often as not, as much the cause of a public path 
falling into disuse as is a “ reputation ” for badness ; therefore, 
seeing that it is no actual crime to lock a gate across a public 
path, is it to be wondered at that farmers should sometimes seize 
the opportunity ? If they can do so without attracting attention, 
it is really a very common practice for farmers to lock and fasten 
their gates. I remember an instance myself where I was thrown 
off the lay of a path by a locked gate, from which the path I was 
seeking started as a cart-track. I desisted at the time from 
proceeding past the gate, but it so happened that I afterwards 
discovered my abandoned path to be really a public right of way 
after all, and, therefore, happening to meet the farmer, I spoke 
to him about it. He said that he merely put a lock on the gate 
because it was so often left open, and his cattle got out of the 
field. In answer to a further question as to why he did not 
place a stile beside the gate, he simply gave a shrug and said 
that folks could as easily get over the gate as a stile if they 
wanted to use the path. Now, this occurred upon a path w'hich 
is fairly well used, and of the public right over which there was 
no question. Therefore, I maintain that if an owner can put up 
a gate and lock it across a notoriously bad path — one in such a 
condition as to be but seldom used, and of the retention of 
which no one seems to have any concern — it does not form so 
conclusive a piece of evidence against the public as if the 
obstruction appeared across a well-beaten path where objection 
would more likely be taken to it. 
One more point, and that is with reference to the Yeomanry 
rifle-range, which it was stated had been in existence for some 
twenty years, and the line of fire of which passed overhead 
across where the path dips down to the stream. Now, when 
the Yeomanry established their range, it seems they utilized 
the path in question as a means of reaching the firing-points, 
and it is a significant fact that upon one of the occasions when 
a horse was “ bogged,” it was in consequence of a member of 
the corps having been sent to warn off some people who were on 
the other side of the stream. Presuming that the path was a 
public path before the Yeomanry came, it had evidently, in con- 
sequence of its badness, even then practically fallen out of use. 
It is to be regretted, therefore, that a champion with the 
experience and perseverance of Mr. Fred. Roberts did not at 
that time come forward and get the matter threshed out, for 
that was before the Yeomanry had made the bank across the 
