FENCING DISPUTE

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 8, Issue 488, 9 December 1919, Page 4

FENCING DISPUTE

And Native Bush

Preserve the Scenery

The difference of opinion concerning the erection of a dividing fence between Messrs H. E. R. L Wily, and A. H. Shepherd, farmers at Mauku, resulted in litigation before Mr F. K. Hunt 8 M., at the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, when application under the Fencing Act, 1908, was made by Mr Wily, for the erection of a dividing fence, between the northern boundary of the property of the plaintiff, being portion of Lot 1, Parish of Puni and the southern boundary of the property of defendant, being Lot 2 of the Parish aforesaid. Mr C. H. j. Wily appeared for Mr Wily, and Mr 0. 0. Mahoney for Mr Shepherd. Lengthy evidence and legal argument ensued, wherein it was stated that on August 18 th plaintiff gave notice to defendant to erect a cattle proof fence of five barbed wires. Subsequently defendant forwarded a cross notice, asking for a sheep proof fence, and requesting plaintiff to cut a fence line 66 feet wide through his standing bush. It was stated that the fence was 28 chains 70 links long, out of which 8 chains of fence was in good repair. Defendant claimed that the fence proposed to be erected by plaintiff was insufficient, and that the bush was of no commercial value.

Mr Wily claimed that the bush was of ornamental value. Section 21 of the Act was read, wherein it provided that if bush was preserved for ornamental purposes, on condition that it did not exceed five chains in width, it could remain. Counsel for defendant contended that as the width exceeded that provided for by the Act. a fence line of 66 feet should be cut.

Mr Wily differed, and stated on oath, that the width of the bush along the proposed fence line was under five chains, and he contended it should remain.

Defendant stated that the bush was eight chains wide. The parties also differed on the question of the wire and the material in the fence. Plaintiff claimed that the three barbed wires were quite sound, and that they could be re-used. He submitted a specimen of the wire.

Mr Shepherd claimed that the wire was rotten, but 80 per cent of the posts were alright Mr Hunt: I am to decide what class of fence is to be erected, and if the bush should be felled? Counsel: Yes

Mr Shepherd stated that Mr Wily's bush was a veritable breeding ground for rabbits, but Mr Wily said his place was was not infested with rabbits, but that the rabbits lived in the 25 acres of scrub on Mr Shepherd's property. He had preserved the bush for ornamental pur* poses and sbelter, and on one occasion when the ti tree was cut, he had had it carried well away from the bu9h, to be burned, so that the flames therefrom would not scorch the scenery. Legal argument, and a general conversation took place; Mr Shepherd agreeing to erect the fence if he was paid his price. The Magistrate said he was satisfied that the bush should be preserved, and he would not order Mr Wily to cut it down. Ornamental bush such as this should certainly be encouraged, but in order to have the fence erected he suggested that a couple of feet be cut. Mr Shepherd could cut his bush down if he liked. With reference to the fence, he ordered it to be erected with three barbed and four plain wires, Mr Franklin (recalled) said the barb in the present fence was alright, the best of wire broke at times.

Mr Hunt ordered six posts to the chain, and left the question of the wire to the parties to consider, but if any difference arose, Mr Zinzan was to be asked to adjudicate. They could use any material they liked, but two batterns are to be put between the posts. The case was adjourned until the January sitting of the court, to see how the arrangements between the parties worked out.