CLAIM FOR FENCING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 453, 1 April 1909, Page 3

CLAIM FOR FENCING.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, N. Martin (Mr Reade) sought to recover from A. P. Easton (Mr Loughnau) the sura of ,£3 10s for erecting a fence on defendant’s property at Moutoa. Plaintiff in evidence said he was milking on shares with Easton; Had finished one season with him and had then renewed the agreement for another season. Defendant told witness that he was going to erect a fence to sub-divide a paddock, and said he would get witness to give him a hand with it. Witness acting under instructions from defendant brought the material from Foxtou, and defendant then asked witness to make a start and he would come out the following day. He did not turn up the next day, and kept putting it off day by day. He sent a man named Johnson out to help me. Johnson was under engagement to me for the milking season. He was put on the fencing work and witness paid him for the work done. The only work that Easton did on the fence was that he put one post in, to show how the work could be done. Defendant considered he knew more about any work than anyone else. The fence was 20 chains long. Witness had measured it by the wire used. Easton did not object to the fence. He said it was a good cow proof fence and was satisfactory. Witness said that he had charged 3s 6d per chain, which he considered was a fair and reasonable price. When he asked defendant for payment he said that witness had agreed to put up the fence for nothing, if be (defendant) found the material. The fence was of no advantage to witness.

To Mr Loughuau; Witness said he did not remember suggesting to Easton that the fence should be put up, Put the fence up according to instructions. Spoke to defendant about payment of the fence in February. Did not remember Easton speaking about the fence twelve mouths ago. Defendant talks about all kinds of things that no one takes any notice of.

For the defence, Mr Loughnan called A. P. Easton, defendant, who stated that plaintiff asked him to put up the fence twelve months previous. Told him then it was not worth the expense and would leave it until the following season. When plaintiff again approached him he agreed to find the material if plaintiff would do the labour. This was agreed upon. Told plaintiff he would give him a hand with the work, which he did. Plaintiff did not mention payment for the work done on the fence until witness told him that he expected him (plaintiff) to pay for a heifer, whose neck had been broken through his fault. Plaintiff then said “if that’s your game I’ll come at you for the fence.” Witness said that the fence was of no benefit to him whatever. To Mr Reade ; Did not doubt that the fence was 20 chains long. Evidence was also given by George Barber, who said he had inspected the fence and considered that 2s per chain would be an outside price for erecting the fence. The magistrate said that the question was what arrangements had been made. He was of opinion that if plaintiff was to be paid for the work, a price would have been fixed. He had also to take into consideration the fact that plaintiff did not mention the fence until defendant had made a demand for payment of the heifer. Judgment was given for defendant with costs, £1 is.