CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4430, 16 March 1883, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

UNDEFENDED Ca9E3. Judgments were given for the plaintiffs in the following cases, with costs :— Carpenter v. Waatatipa; claim for £39 10s for a dishonored promissory note and interest. Mr Miller for the plaintiff.—T. Wood v. Aperahama te Reiro; claim, £14 12s, for goods sold. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff.—V«T. Moroney v. Buckley; claim, £1 16s, goods supplied —M. Casey v J. H. Nicholls; claim, £12, goods supplied, and costs. Mr Miller for plaintiff. —James Williamson v. R. Owen ; claim, £2 11s sd, rent. Mr Miller for plaintiff. The defendant admitted tbe debt, and stated that he had tried to make arrangements in the matter, but the plaintiff said he would make an example of him.—Lamb Bros. v. A. and J. White; claim, £37 8s 4d, for a dishonored promissory note and interest; Mr Miller for plaintiff.—J. R. Sawyer v. P. Quinlan; claim £70 for a dishonored promissory note and interest; Mr Miller for the plaintiff.—J., Clark v. J. E. Hawley; claim £15 7s Id, for a dishonored promissory note and interest. Defended Case. 0. binney v. townsend. £7 6s, for share of expense, for fencing between the lands of plaintiff and defendant at Hikutaia. - Mr Miller appeared for defendant. C. Binnie produced a plan snowing the properties and the fencing done, and said he had erected a ti-tree wattle fence live years ago, which was objected by tbe for mer owner, who demanded a post and rail f»noj should be placed. Kelly, a former owner, about 2 years ago put the poats up, and stretched four plain wires without staples in a manner that they could not be tigntened. When Kelly's estate was sold Mr Townsend bought it. After this the plaintiff served defendant with a notice that ha would place four barbed

wires in the fence. This was necessary, as ,the old plain wire was useless. He erected the wire fence in. February. He charged interest on the sum claimed for feneinc between the properties. Whenever Mr Townsend's bull broke his fence, he repaired it and charged Is for it. Cross examined by Mr Miller—The land was owned by him He had paid £5 for the 27 acres Bought it fiom a Maori woman who lived with him, and who held it from the Native Lands Court. Have been living on the ground nearly seven years. When it was Maori land objected to be rated on account of its being Maori land, and was released from such payment. Have received no certifi cate of title. Was registered as owner of the land for life.

J. Clark said that fhe fence in question was in a state of bad repair when he saw it, which was before it was repaired; the wires were slack. He generally corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff.

Annie Cook swore that she had assisted plaintiff to repair the fence ; before' the repairs were effected anything couid get through. Saw a bull and another head of cattle get in on Boxing morning. Mr Miller said the defence was that the fence was not out of repair, and it was unnecessary for Mr Binnie to do what he had done, and had he done only tbe work that was necessary, ■ it couid have been done for 5s or 10s. That fence had been the fence agreed to between the parties, and should have remained up, until it was thoroughly out of repair. He also took the technical objection that the land was native land, and Mr Binnie had shewn no title to it.

John Townsend swore that he had been in possession of land adjoining plaintiff's for about 18 months. Saw tbe fence in question, which he described; it was quite sufficient for the purposes required —in fact, it was a very good fence. The wires were slack when they were placed, and they could, have been tightened in two hours. Considered it cattle proof. Would not erect a better fence for the purpose of keeping out cattle. Wm. Ripley occupied land adjoining plaintiff's, and (the fence be tweon their lands..' His-evidence as to the fence corresponded with Mr Townsend's.

John Alley gave similar evidence to the last witness.

The Bench said that it was bound to take the evidence given, which was that the fence was cattle proof. His experience was that a fence such as ihat described was not cattle proof. The Bench did not think it could allow the claim for the new wire. The labor, 10s, and staples, 2s, and cost", 11s, would be allowed, and he would, order Mr Townsend to keep his portion of the ditch in repair. ; ,