DISPUTE OVER DIVIDING FENCE.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 670, 27 September 1921, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER DIVIDING FENCE.

COURT’S EXPERT TO REPORT. . The question having arisen between Mr R. J. Dooley, storekeeper, Te Kuiti, and owner of section 95, Waiuku East Parish, and Mr H. E. R. L. Wily, farmer, Mauku, owner of section 96, Waiuku East Parish, as to the nature of the dividing fence between the two properties, applies tioii was made to Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., it the local Court on Friday to hear and determine the question in dispute. Mr C. 0. Mahony appeared for Mr DoOley, and Mr C. J. Wily appeared for Mr H. E. R. L. Wily. On June 13th plaintiff notified defendant under the Fencing Act, .1908, to erect immediately and proposed that such fence be a substantial wire fence, having not less than seven wares tightly stretched, or six: wires with a top rail or barbed wire with or without battens, or lacing affixed to the wires between the posts, or standards, to be of durable wood or iron well and substantially erected and not more than 9 feet apart, the top wire not to be less than 3 feet 9 inches from the surface of the ground, the wires to be not lighter than No. 8 in steel or black or galvanised iron, the space between each of the three bottom wires or the bottom wire and the ground not to exceed five inches.

On June 28th Mr Wily served a cross notice on plaintiff objecting upon the following grounds -(1) That it does not specify whether steel or black or galvanised wire shall be used ; (2) That the fence erected by you in agreement with me is a inore efficient end sufficient fence than the one you propose shall be erected, and merely requires some temporary repairs. Defendant further objected to the notice in so far that it does not correspond with the proposal I now make that the fence be repaired by the removal >f any decayed posts and their replacement by sound puriri posts, so that there shall be not less than seven posts to each two chains, and by the addition of a sufficient number of plain galvanised iron wires not lighter than No. 8 to bring the total number of wires up to not less than seven, to be stapled to the posts and to the battens, which are already in position.

Mr Wily pointed out that he wrote Mr Dooley agreeing to the erection of his portion of the fence but would not accept Mr Dooley’s manager's decision as to whether his work and material came up to requirements. He wanted a reputable person to gunge the work In view of defendant agreeing to the erection of the fence, the Magistrate suggested some suitable person to inspect the fence, andl to report to the Court on the following; questions : (1) Whether the fence requires repairing or renewing; (-) ff the fence requires repairing only, will the proposals contained in Mr Wily’s cross notice, if carried out, make the fence a sufficient one ? ; (3) If the fence requires renewing, are the proposals contained in Mr Dooley’s notice, if carried out, sufficient ? (4) In the event of the expert being of the opinion that a portion or portions of the fence re-* paired and a portion or portions renewed, the Court desires him to advise specifically what portion oi poitions he considers should! he repaired or renewed, and to indicate from perusal of the notice and cross notice which of the two suggested types of fence he prefers to he adopted. Both parties were agreeable to the Magistrate’s suggestion, and Mr Joseph Batty, of Karaka, was appointed, his report to be in die hands of the Clerk of the Court before. next Court day.