R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3605, 8 May 1890, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTEBTON-THUBSDAY

(Before .Colonel'Boberts, R.M.)

Trustees Masterton Hospital v. J. W. Branmgan.- Claim, £6, for maintenance- in Hospital'.' The Seoretary (Mr Sellar) explainad that the amount had been paid into Court, with costs, but the cheque was returned as informal, and the amount was still due and owing, i Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs, £2los, ;• (J. Maokay v v 7. Cotterell and another. Claim, £2.1 lis Bd. Mr Bunny, for pUintiff, Mr Beard for defendant.

George Maokay, sworn, deposed that ho was a farmer residing at Wangaehu, Defendants owned property adjoining him as trustees in the estate of W T Bowse, deceased. Ho owned section 140 and 141 in the Kppuaranga district, and defendants owned section 142, containing 815 acres. He had erected a dividing fence abeut.two years ago, but did not know at the time who owned the land adjoining. Erected the fence about the end of Beptember, 1888. Had cleared the line of fencing, and was suing for half the cost, with the same proportion for advertising and fencing. Had applied to defendants for payment before takingiproceedings, but the amount had not been paid. By Mr Beard: Took the necessary eteps to find out who was.the owner by applying to Mr Nalder, who was paying tho rates and taxes. Know the land belonged to Bowse's estate. Wrote to Mr Nalder because lie thought he was probably, trustee. Took no' further action to find out who was the owner, as Mr Nalder did not reply to.his letters. Gave notice of his intention to fence in May, 1888. The notice was intended for the Trustees of Bowse's estate, and was the only advertisement on the subject he had inserted. Started to erect the fence early in August, 1888. The fencing line was all up and down bill and was oovored with bush. Fixed the boundary line by the old survey pegs. The bush was fallen not later than November, 1887.

John Bucherford gave evidence as to the fencing of his property, whioh adjoined that of Mr Mackay. ■ Mr Beard then addressed the Court for defendant, and urged for a iionsuitf on the ground that portion of the work had been done before the notice of the intention to fence had been given, and that the Mice was an informal one. .

Mr Bunny replied, contending that quite sufficient uitice had, been given and the work had been satisfactorily completed.

Plaintiff was' oltim&tely.norjsuited with costs, (Left Sitting,) ,'