S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 3 August 1923, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. Logan Stout, Esq,., S.M.) Wandering Stock. Otaki Borough Council (Mr. Atmore) v. Yyliare Gilbert: —Charge of allowing a cow to wander. —Defendant, pleaded not guilty. Harry Phillips, ranger, stated that jjc impounded tlie cow while defend ant 's boy was handy. He did not notice the lad at the time. —Case adjourned. Two other cases were also adjourned. Possession of Tenement. 31. i'isker v. Coutts Bros. —Claim ii its, and possession of tenement. —Defendants denied owing the rent, stating tiic heuse was rented by Mr. Kitteridge. Plaintiff said he let three young tel Jnivs have the use of a batch at the seasidu at Paraparaumu, and at tiu die same time they run up an account null him. He told them they coulu li*[ec the whare on condition they went out when asked. They had not pain rent but in return had given abuse. He p a d informed the constable that he would uot charge rent if they went out peacefully. He thought lie was doing them a good turn and if they went out yuietlv he would not ask for rent. The S.M. ordered the three young fellows to leave within a week, and an order v;aa made accordingly. A Waikanae Case. \V. H. and V. Yusggcry v. L. li.Greenanay.- —Claim fell Ids Sd, being amount for repairs to boundary fence between the properties of the two parties. Victor Weggery state?!: lam a farmer of Wailtauau and occupy j Motions adjoining- Greenaway’s. The fence required repairing, being an ole. issicc —part very old, being 30 year; old. The best of fences would require repairs after being up about eight years. We served notice on defendant, find he never replied, and we proceeded, after a delay, to repair the fence. Tenders were called for the work and it. Waggery’s at Ss, labour only, was accepted. I consider the claim a most t reasonable one, as stock could get through the fence in many places. Part ef the fence, on the southern end, was damaged by tire. We did uot cause the •ire, and do uot know the cause of the outbreak. When 1 first saw it, it seemed to be coming from Greenaway’s. A j bull jot over the fence but did not damage it. No part of the fence was j damaged by a horse or bullocks. The ..urn out material was divided up between Greenaway and ourselves, while tins repaired fence would keep stock rack. Mr. Greenaway said tenders were •tilled and that V. Weggery joined in us contractor. Plaintiff to defendant: The posts j were the best and cheapest they could set. 1 think I served three, perhaps four, notices on you; you were not agreeable to have the fence done up. Vou was served with a legal fencing laities but did uot answer, although we pave you plenty of time to think matters over. I first saw the fire on your property, and my brother and I helped you put it out. The bull referred to would jump fences, but was not vicious. Tire animal was oniv there about tc-n .lavs. I deny that iny horse broke the rV-iift- down; there was no horse on the "atoperty for mouths, but I put five lulloeks in the paddock. Bullocks got m> your place, but your cows were the cause of it. I consider the fence, since repaired, a first-class one, but your corse has since damaged it. William Henry Weggery corroborated the evidence of his brother. Ho added that th'e fence was laying over when the bull jumped it, while his horse did no damage. Bullocks had hopped over and had done no harm. The cost of repairs was very reasonable and it was necessary to cut the gorse before doing the fence. He was hampered by water from Greenaway’s while doing the J'anei-ng. To Mr. Gre'enaway: The bull did not go through the fence. The tall grass in your plantation may liavo been a temptation, but I never saw the bull there. I saw the bull in your other paddocks. 1 left him there so as to bring the matter to a head. I did not ,sav I put the animal there to annoy you. Thore were 145 posts in the fence, mostly new. One notice sent you was returned through the dead letter office. When I suggested repairs you said the posts and wires were in good order. Mr. Greenaway: Tell the Court uhat we have quarrelled about! The S.M.: i’ig-headedness, I think! Eric Weggery stated he was on the farm when the fire broke out on Greenaway’s. He helped put it out. Donald Muck restated he knew the disputlPand knew it needed repairmg ‘ badly. The price charged was reasonable. He had seen no damage done by Weggery’s stock.

Thomas Brown stated Mr. Weggery asked him to inspect the fentte. Previous to repairs it was very had, it was Tiow in first-class order and the charge r.vas jeasqnable. __ _ . - William E. Wootton gave similar evidence. Defendant stated: The- fence has always been a dilapidated funco except along the plantation which was good till damaged by a bull in 1020. On ffjme 6, 1920, William Weggery told me lie put the bull there to bring the matter'to a The bull was there for some time and kept coming through the fence into my plantation. Ha came through several times, and six times I put him back to Weggery’s front paddock. Weggery almost immediately put him back .to the paddock near my plantation. I saw the bull walk through the fence* but never saw him, Jump‘once. Ho slackened all the wirest and slackened many of the staples. He| al«o pushed the battens off and knocked' .the posts about. Wpggery on the laM Scansion never offered to take the bull! but but went away rejoicing. I had ] tried'to put it' out but failed 1 and' liter % k*dlt taken'to the pound. ' ‘Then jTeyjery ws foripus. After .this a.

draught horse, with the itch, was put there. It used to stand day after day rubbing against the fence. After several days I saw Weggery looking at lihe horse, and at a place where it had broken off a post. The post was renewed by a sapling. Bast spring five bullocks were put in a small paddock. Two jumped over into my place and made the fence worse. I wrote to Weggerys and asked them to take the bullocks out and they never replied. Later, after a Supreme Court action I asked them to take the bullocks out, but- they did not do so for some time. The old fence was taken down and a new fence put up. The baek fence was cut down flat, every post, bar one, taken nit, while they erected a new fence, -sing some of the material. The same practically applies to the fence at the i plantation. j To Mr, Smith: I have beon farming i since boyhood and know about fences, j He considered the fence in dispute had ! not been repaired, but renewed. He had seen the bull push his way through ihe fence but had never seen him jump it. I entered into possession of the i property in 1912. The front portion of j ihe fence needed repairs, while in the j 'utck portion he would condemn some of j the posts. j William Askew to Greenaway: I remember you and William Weggery arguing relative to trespass, and remembering Weggery saying he put the bull in his paddock to annoy you. The •ondition of posts were better in one' place than in another section. To Mr. Smith: I inspected the fence running to the baek. It was not in a bad state till the bull got through. He ( would have repaired the fence in a j similar way in which the Weggergs had ■ done. !

George Buchanan considered a good job had been made of the fence, exceptionally good for repair work. A lot of new wire and posts had been used. Mrs. Webber gave evidence that the bull that has «ausod trouble was her property, and that Weggery offered to give her 30s. as it was running on his place. She had, however, previously sold it to Mrs. Tidy. John Laviu gave evidence as to the bull being impounded. Mr. Greenaway maintained that the bull was put iu the paddock for the purpose of damaging the fence. Tho old fence had been renewed by a new fence and he maintained that Weggerys had sent him the wrong notice. The S.M. said it seemed the fonoe was in a bad state and needed repair before the bull was put there. A certain amount of damage, however, was done by the bull. He did not agree with Mr. Greenaway that the fence was a new one. He thought a good job had been made of the fence and thought it a pity the grievance had been brought before the Court. He would give judgment. for £ls, £0 being allowed off for damage done by the bull. Costs amounting to £3 9s (witnesses), £2 Is fid (Court costs) and £2 12s (solicitor) were allowed. A Dairying Ca««. Te Horo Co-operative Dairy Co. (Mr. Atmore) v. R. J. King (Mr. Cooper), claim £97 3s od, counter-claim for the ,amc amount. Similar cases againstD. Grant, Charlotte Duggan, and Geo. p'jiirr were also set down, but it was agreed to take the case against King us a test one. The claim was for a refund of loans (£35) and interest, de-: feiidant being a shareholder and a supplier to the Company’s factory for the 1920-21 season. Legal argument, which lasted for -onio considerable time was heard, after which evidence was given by J. G. Harkness. Chairman of Directors, and .John L. Arcus, Auditor. The S.M. reserved judgment. Mr. Atmore appeared for the Company and Mr. Cooper for the defendant. Civil Cases. Judgment was given by default in the following cases: —Cyril Srilith v. Bum Kee, claim £l2 and costs; A. W. Roberts v. Tom Stewart, claim £2l fis od e«=ts £3 11s fid; George Reav v. Matiu te llema.ru, claim 15s 7d, costa 14s.'--