NATURE OF DIVIDING FENCE.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 674, 11 October 1921, Page 5

NATURE OF DIVIDING FENCE.

COURT’S EXPERT RECOMMENDS REPAIRS. THE CASE OF DOOLEY V. WILY. The question having arisen as to the nature of a dividing fence between Mr R. J. Dooley, owner of section 95, Waiuku East Parish, and Mr H. E. R!, L. Wily, owner of section 96, Waiuku East parish, application was made last Court day to Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., to determine the nature of the fence to be erected. Both parties being agreeable, the matter was referred to Mr Joseph Batty, of Patumahoe, as the Court’s expert, to inspect and report to the Court on certain questions, which -were detailed in our last issue. At Friday’s sitting of the Court, Mr Batty reported having inspected the whole length of the fence, after the particular line had been pointed out to him by Mr Wily and Mr Blackmore, plaintiff’s manager,, He was of the opinion that ffhe fence could be made a sufficient one if repai rs were effected, in accordance with the proposals contained in Mr Wily’s cross notice but he suggested limiting the space between the battens, and battens and posts, nqt to exceed four feet, and that the barbed wire ali. ready there should be used for the *top part of the fence and then new plain wire to be procured should be used for the lower. He gave the distances between the wires from the top wire fto the ground line, viz., 11 inches, 9 inches, 6 inches,, 5 inches, 5 inches, 5 inches, and 6 inches, and also recommended the heighth of the fence to be 3 feet 11 inches. As each party agreed to be bound by the expert’s report, the next question was : who w|as to do the work to the fence ? After a little argument, it .was decided to call tenders for the repairs (to the fence, the solicitors for the parties to draw up conditions.

Each party is to defray its own costs. •