R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1887, 13 January 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

: MASTERTON.—MONDAY, Before H, S,. Wardeu,, R. M, (Adjourned from yesterday.) R, S. Hawkins v John Vile—Claim £73 Is Id, half share of dividing fence of seotions, Upper Taueru District. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant, R. S. Hawkins, plaintiff, sworn, produced notice in compliance with "The Fencing Act, 1881," setting forth the line proposed to be fenced, and boundaries arid class of fence, which had been sent to defendant. Prior to that he asked Defendant to meet hini on the ground, and it was in consequence of his not coming lie sent the notice as required by the Act. After sening that notice he saw Mr Vile who agreed to the fence, and also to the line, and the fence was put up in accordance with'the arrangement made them, rabbit netting being part gf it. Having erected the fence he gave Mv Vjle a statement setting fprth the whole Items amounting to "£i4Tl 2a 3d, the half of,which he was now suing for. Ho received a letter (produced) from Mr Yile in answor to one sent by plaintiffs solicitor, in which he said he would go on with tho fenco on his finishing shearing, By Mr Beard: Ninety-six chains was the amount of fencing done, the notice only applied to a portion.

Mr Beard read the notice which described the whole of the boundary line. His Worship said the notice applied undoubtedly to the whole Boundary line. Witness in answer to Mr Beard said the boundry line was over 2 miles.

The fence had been erected over the rough ground not strictly on the line but in the most convenient npner suitable to its erection on such irregular land and that it had been agreed between both parties to do so. Mr Beard applied for a nonsuit on the ground that tlxe notice called on Uie o wnor to erect his share of the wholo of the boundary fence, failing which tho plantiff could have dono so, and sued for recovery of half cost, whereas plantiff had only erected a small portion of the lino and sued for half what he done.

Mr Bunny's answer to that was that by a subsequent agreement- Mr Hawkins waq to erect the portion he did, and Mr Vilo an equal length which he had' failed.

His Worship intimated his unwillingness to grant a nonsuit, he would hear evidence. rebutting the after agreement. If he had to act on the simple notice only he might be preparod to graut a nonsuit,but the subsequent agreement put it in a different light. Plaintiff was not claiming now on the grounds as at first stated, but rested iipon the subsequent agreement. If the agreement was that defendant should put up half tho fence and he had not carried put that arrangement, plaintiff could sue for breach of agreement. Ho thought the proper course to have takon iyas to have erected tho wholo fence and then sued fqr half post, For •■the defence flfr Board called thp defendant. John Yile, sworn, said: He had an interview with Mr Hawkins in respect of boundary fence, He was given to understand that Mr Hawkins coiild erect q. rabbit proof fenoe at the oost of tho ordinary fencing, and they agreed that each should do their own share of tho dividing fence, Mr Hawkins said! "Well, I must have a paddock, you go and fight away at one end and I will the other." Mr Hawkins wrote that he could not get the wire netting, Mr Hawkins had dono a portion of ono end, and he had got the line cleared and posts in.'at his end for 30 chains. -Mr Hawkins agreed to fall and bip along tho line at his (witness') end but he had nqt flop so, although witness had done his share.

By Mr Bunny: He did not recollect receiving a letter from Mr Hawkins prior to the notice. After further evidence had been taken the plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.