The Fencing Act.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 143, 22 May 1885, Page 2

The Fencing Act.

A ease under jthe Fencing Aqt<Hazznff V;>PenA<jll an another j,- one 7 of €he iii\st of its kiqd, came before. the Resident Magistrate's Court ; the btn>r day iThe plaintiff in' his pla'nit set 6u€fl). that he/vas the owner of section* '33, : bleckC fC ISlgaire Siurvjy District, amSthat.te/hiH given n.)tico to fonco as by-laws required; Qi) that defendants were occupiers of adjoiuing .lands y (3) that no sufficient fence hud been erected ; (4) tlilt "there had been an insufficient fence erected by defendants or one of them, but which : fence unnecessarily trespassed upon his (plaintiff's) land, and was not erected on the proper boundary ;— wherefore plaintiff claimed that the JResidenfc Magistrate would (1) make an order, for tlie removal • of present fence, (2) decide upon the de--scription of fencd to be erecfe'd, and (3), make such other order as the Resident Magistrate deemed fit. It turned oiit tliat no notice had been served m writino* npon the defendants ; that a seven-wire fence had been demanded ; that a fiveI wire fence had beeafpntup' ; there was a conflict of testimony as v i(i©S'hejlier it was a cattle proof f e.nce but it was given m evidence tbat^er the summons was served defendant^fe^ set to work to improve fence ; thatiii:^ chains the deviation from the correct boundary line varied from nothing to two' feet. ' The Resiaeat^Magistrate 'seSnfed" toiWMi there was not much to-complain of m respect of th<j ; deviation,, buPli^Athst iftsthe! notice to fenpe had not. been grvWin wrUing as required, by law^it Vras.noUlie business of the court' to- step. m. The case was therefore distnissed, but as there were faults on each side, withont costs.- '