FOWLS, PIGS AND MANGOLDS.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1922, Page 7

FOWLS, PIGS AND MANGOLDS.

A WESTOWN DISPUTE. WHEN NEIGHBORS DISAGREE. “A paltry dispute between neighbors, which should never have come before the Court,” was the description given by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who appeared for the defendants in an action brought at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday, by William Eva, gardener, Westown, who sought to recover from Charles Oliver and Mabel Oliver, the sum of £7 as damages which, he alleged, the defendants’ fowls had done to his half-acre of mangolds. Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., was on the bench, and Mr. It. H. Billing appeared for the plaintiff.

The evidence of Eva and his wife. Eliza Ann, showed that they had apparently ’ been forced to spend the greater part of their time in chasing the defendant’s fowls from his mangolds, which he needed for his two cows and pigs. Mrs. Eva was particularly strong on the point that every time she chased the birds they made for Oliver’s place, and. while Eva did not lay any great stress on his chasing exploits, he reckoned that he had. complained about the trespasses per medium of his children. He also knew that Mrs. Oliver had a good garden, but her fowls had not been given the opportunity of ’satiating their appetites in the luscious growth there, “she was too careful of that,” he remarked. He scoffed at the idea that his pigs had eaten his growing mangolds. “Have you ever seen teeth marks in your mangolds,” asked Mr. Quilliam. “Yes, fowl’s,” was the ready reply, and then he proceeded to give the Court a description of a fowl attacking a mangold, mentioning that the feathered marauder first pecked a hole in the skin and then accomplished the business proper of making a meal from the contents. Continued assaults on a mangold left only the skin. The defence was negative evidence to the effect that defendant’s fowls, for which Mrs. Oliver accepted full responsibility, could not have done the. damage, as when they were let out, Mrs. Oliver or her children watched them. Mrs. Oliver had never seen her fowls being chased from the plaintiff s propertv. but she and her sister (Edith Challis) and Mabel Bennett had seen his fowls among the mangolds and had also seen his cow and his pigs 'browsing there.

Expert evidence for either side was given by Joseph Moyle and Ryan H. Grennock respectively, the former reckoning that easily £7 worth of damage had been caused’by the fowls, while the latter assessed it at 10s. Mr. Mowlem gave judgment for the plaintiff for £l, with court costs 35s and witness’ expenses 12a 6d. “And that ■will buy quite a lot of wire netting,” he said, “to keep the fowls out.’