RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1528, 21 December 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gxraldinb—Monday, Dsa. 20, 1886. [Before the Rev. G. Barchy, and Messrs W. U. Slack and R. H. Pearpoint, EBqs.,J.P.'s] CIVIL CASE. W. Hawke v, J. Marray, Manager of the Orari Estate—Claim ss, for removal of one panel of feo cing. W. Hawke, plaintiff, sworn, s«id he was a farmer, living on the Geraldina Eoad. Some time in April last he noticed that a potion of his fence had been removed., He saw the defendant, who admitted having removed the fence. Plaintiff told him he had removed his fence, and defendant said he was sorry he had done se, and promised to replace it. Afterwards Vent to see the fence, and found that the rails had be n cut in two, And only half the panel pat back instead of the whole. Saw defendant again, and asked him if he was going to put up the whole of the panel. Defendant said " no, he thought he had put enough back." Phintifl said he wasted the whole of the panel, as that was the boundary of his property. He asked defendant to go and ' ■ee the spot, but he refused. He (plaintiff) now applied to the Court to order plaintiff to pay for the remainder of the panel., (flaiotiff here explained on the map the position of the fences and the panel, the onitside post of which be said was npon his own land.) / To defendant plaintiff said that he had ' promised to rtpluce the fence. He cou'd swear that he (defendant) never asked him what amount of fence be was to put back. Had never made any demand for the value of the fence. Defendant here stated that he was afraid that there was a question of title involved, and that the Bench would have no jurisdiction. He denied that the outside post was upon plaintiff's land. He had also witnesses to prove that he did sot remove the fence. Plaintiff called —-Bisset, who said be. had been upon the Orari estate going on for 20 years. He knew the section re ferred to (No. 2667). He knew the line of fence and the posts. The post that had been broken off was in the line of -fence. He considered the fence was. 6ft inside the boundary line. It had been erected by Mr Macdonald, who always; allowed 6ft from the boundary for drains. Defendant said there was no need for him to croß3»e famine this witness. He did not consider him qualified to give an opinion. The fence should have been surveyed by a qualified surveyor to provu she boundary. Upon being sworn, he taid that the fence had been erected by his predecessor (Mr Gunn). Finding it no longer necessary he had ordered one of his men to remove it, and had given him special instructions not to interfere nith plaintiffs fence. Some time afterwards he (defendant) met plaintiff, who " iold him he had taken some of his fence away. Defendant said he was sorry, and would put it back. Plaintiff told him be had better go and see for himself how much was wanted. Defendant afterwards heard that plaintiff was entitled to 3ft outside the line. When he heard that such was the case he gave plaintiff 4ft 9in so as tc be sure of giving him his full share. Defendant would have put back the 6ft only plaintiff would never say .- bow moch be had to put back. He had since measured the road, and found the outside post outside of plaintiffs land. There wai an old stump there which belonged to a previous fence, but it hail nothing to do with the fence in question. To plaintiff defendant stated the ' places where he wag when they had ■• spoken about the fence. He had refused 1 to go and look at it one day when about 14. chains from it because he was busy . . cutting out cattle, and plaintiff had told him he intended to take him to Oouri. . To the Bench defendant stated thkfc his nuoi for Ukifig down Um two* waa

that it waß no longer wanted for the uNir-* pose for which it was erected. By means' of this fence and another at the bridge plaintiff made a p.tddock of the road, which was very annoying to the owner of the estate. He reiterated his willingness to replace the panel if plaintiff had told him how much was required. Defendant called Denis Connolly, who stated ho remembered defendant instructing him to remove the fence off Hawke'a road, and giving him instructions not to interfere with plaintiff's fence. The old stump had nothing to do with the fence he removed. He had measured the road that morning with defendant, and found it to be 18in less than a chain wide from the opposite fence to 'he outside post. Defendant again referred to his willingness to replace the panel if the plaintiff had told him how much he required. He also referred to the 4ft. 9in. he had put up when he found plaintiff was only entitled to 3ft., and accused plaintiff of allowing the matter to stand over till shearing time on to annoy him. This accusation plaintiff emphatically denied. The Bench ssid it was h pity plaintiff had not had the land surveyed, as they were not in a position to say whether the post was upon the boundary or net. Plaintiff would be nonsuited. The Court then rose.