THE FENCING ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 November 1921, Page 7

THE FENCING ACT.

A DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT. QUESTION OF LIABILITY. An application to settle a dispute under the Fencing Act was heard by Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., in the New Plymouth Court on Thursday. The applicant was E. D. Ansford, farmer, Omata (Mr. F. E. Wilson), and the defendant was Mrs. Paula Holmes (Mr. H.«R. Billing). According to Mr. Wilson, plaintiff was the occupier of land adjoining Mrs. Holmes’ property, and the area had originally belonged to Mrs. Holmes. Ansford gave notice to fence to Mrs. Holmes, as he was entitled to, but the cross-notice which, he received was peculiar, inasmuch as it did not set up a counter proposal, at least not in any terms. Mrs. Holmes claimed that Ansford was under an obligation to erect thio dividing fence at his own expense. Reviewing earlier negotiations .between the parties, Mr. Wilson said that some time after the sale Ansford called at the house of Mrs. Holmes regarding the dividing fence. At the time of the sale there had been a fence across the land, but it was not in good condition, and did not observe the dividing line as created by the sale of the land. The arrangements then come to i were that Ansford was to erect the dividing fence, with the right to use any suitable material on the existing fence, and he wae afterwards to collect the half cost of the work from Mrs. Holmes.

Prior to starting to fence, Ansford went to a surveyor to get a plan of the locality. Unfortunately he was given an incorrect tracing, but this was not discovered till the work had been completed, when he received a notice from Mrs. Holmes’ solicitors, advising that the fence was on the wrong side and would have to be removed. After this development plaintiff offered to buy the extra land, but this suggestion was refused, although only a very small area was involved. It was then that Ansford, counsel said, decided to have nothing to do with verbal negotiations, and he gave a written notice to fence. Mrs. Holmes replied, requiring Ansford to erect the fence on the boundary line at his own cost. Evidence was given by plaintiff. A non-suit point was raised by Mr. Billing, who contended that, as the parties had made an agreement about the fence, the proceedings did not come within the provisions of the Fencing Act, and quoted authorities touching this point. The non-suit point ’was reserved by His Worship. Proceeding, Mr. Billing said the defence was that an agreement was come to prior to the signing of the agreement for sale and purchase of the land,, whereby it was really made a term of the sale that Ansford would erect and pay for the dividing fence. Evidence was given by Mrs. Holmes and James Holmes. His Worship reserved decision.