Untitled

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 658, 3 November 1882, Page 2

Wednesday, November 1.

Befoke Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M., and His Worship the Mayor.

Snow and Anson v. McPhail. This case adjourned from tho previous day, was called on. In reply to a question from the Bench, it was stated that the parties had been unable to come to any arrangement about the fencing.

The Bench said they were aorry to hear this, as they thought much trouble might be saved by an amicable arrangement being arrived at. As, however, nothing had been done, they would have to go formally into the case, and would ask Mr Anson who appeared on behalf of his firm to make a statement.

Frederick A. Anson deposed : I am a sheep fanner, of the firm of Snow & Anson, of Peraki. We hold freehold and leasehold land adjoining Mr MnPhnil. We served a notice personally on Mr McPhail, under " The Fencing Act, 1881." regarding fencing the boundary between Mr McPhail and ourselves. The notice produced in Court marked Ais the one I gave. We received a reply to the effect that McPhail was quite ready to do his half of this fence, but that he wished to have the bush cleared a chain wide. The copy produced marked B is a copy of the answer we received from Mr McPhail. I then saw Mr McPhail, and said it would not be a good plan for us to each put up ourown half of the fence, and keep half in repair, as it was a most unsatisfactory plan, and we were anxious to have a fixed value on the fencing, and were also anxious to have an interest in the whole fence, and not part, and also an interest in keeping the whole line in repair, and not one half alone. Mr McPhail laid [ down the law, saying that according , to the Act each had to do his own half, and keep his own half in repair. Our contention is, that this is not laid down in the Act. We see nothing at all in the Act providing that each shall put up half the fence and keep half in repair, and we look on it as a most ! peculiar and unsatisfactory arrangement. We had no wish whatever to invite tenders for the whole, or to prevent Mr McPhail from doing any of the work himself, but we wanted a fixed value on the fence. We should have been satisfied if we could have gone over the ground and arranged the price as to the part to be done by us and tlint by Mr McPhail ; this is worth so much per chain, and that is worth co much per chain. It could be soon decided in that way, if Mr McPhail liked to do it. We never had any idea of insisting on Mr McPhuil's employing labor, but we wanted the fence put up, and if be put up more than us we would give him a cheque, or if we put up more he would give us one. We want the fence put up, and we want the fence valued in sections, because some parts are worth a great deal more to put up than others. If we did not agree as to what the fence was worth before it was put up, there might be a dispute afterwards. Mr McPhail'a time is worth more than that of a fencer, as his is ski led labor, and he might set a high value on his work. Wβ want to know the exact value of the boundary fence, to have it put into & s d and settled, for, as holders of Crown lands, we want to be in a position to say to any fresh purchaser, this is what the fence cost. We did etart fencing on tho oid system, each to do half. Mr McPhail put up a piece and then stopped. We had to employ labor, and we got a piece done. We had to knock the men off because our fence was going on and his not; and why should wo put up whilst he was not doing half ? There was no fixture of time, and goodness knows when the fence would have been completed. It was to get the matter settled we brought it to Court.

By Mr McPhail : You started your part of rhe fence first, but it is not completed, ns there is a gap where the gate should be. The map produced shows both fences. They are at present useless, because the sheep can go round tbe ends.

Mr McPhail said ho was anxious to get the fencing done, but he could not afford to pa}' half. He understood from a letter of Messrs Snow and Anson that they wanted the whole of the fence tendered for, and each pay half.

Mr W. i>. Wiikins, sworn, said : I am a civil engineer. I examined the boundary in company with Mr Piper. The map piouuueu is a rougn sketcn of tbe place. Such parts of the boundary as «ye have mentioned in the report are portions of tbe I'tundary we wore unable to go over. Some of tbe pegs are to be found ; not all. It is all rocfciit survey work, so they are pro* ably all in the ground. Mr Wiikins Inn proceeded to explain tho plane, And

said that, he and Mr Piper had been unable to make the parries come to any arrangement. The Bench said that if any unnecessary difficulties were raised, the Court would make an order, and, if the act allowed it, call for tenders, and apportion each his share of the expense.

Mr McPhail said let each do a piece, and if one did a chain more than the other, let the other pay for it.

Mr Anson said that would not satisfy his firm ; they wanted a definite arrangement.

The Bench said that it was a great pity that the thing could not be settled. They saw from the report of Messrs Wilkins and Piper that if an exchange of land could be arranged the fencing wanted would not be more than 70 chains whereas now it was no less than 230 chains. The great cost therefore of no less than 160 chains of fencing might he avoided l>y both sides yielding a Hale, and it was in the hope of some arrangement being arrived at that they had postponed the case on a former occasion. They supposed that there was no immediate hurry, as they would be shearing. Would it make any difference if judgment were deferred, say for a month ? Mr McPhail said that it would make bat little difference. Hβ was not going- to shear till December Ist, but Snow and Anson were aliening now. He should like, however, to see a temporary fence erected at the creek, and if Messrs Snow and Anson would send a man he would also.

Mr Anson said he would not do so, as the creek was not on the fence line, and he wanted the proper fence done, and not to have its erection Btaved off by putting up temporary fences.

The Bench said that they would adjourn the case to the sth December, and in the interval he hoped they would come to a decision. The expenses were already running up, and he advised them to incur no more if they could help it. Mr McPhail said that if Mr Wilkins were to go over the ground with Messrs Snow and Anson and himself, it was probab'e some arrangement might be made for the exchange of the land, so aa to save the extra fencing.

The Bench said they hoped such would be the case, and the Court then adjourned.