DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3689, 17 December 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

." ■ MABTERTON-TUESDAY. i (Before HigHonor District Judgo ',' ' Robinson), ' e Moore v, 1 Douglas, . This was a case in which Mr F Moore, of Glenburn, ' sued) hii neighbour, Mr A; Douglaß,' for ; £25 . damans alleged to have been sus tamed by the trespass of the cattle o the latter upon plaintiffs property, '' Mr W. G. Beard appeared for tin plaintiff, and Mr Menteath for thf 1 defendant, " '. It appears, from the addresses o j qouhsel, that'the School Commis missioners have a reserre adjoining Mr Moore's property.' .Some yearf ago the Commissioners arrange't , with Moore, thai there should bo i give and take boundary line, Moon accordingly fenced and toakm aboul threo shared and twenty aores Qt theresorve, for which he paid the Commisionerj a rental. The Com-. missionots subsequently leased the reserve to Douglas, who claimed thai the proper boundary should be fenced ni lieu of that in existence. I Moore held that it was impracticable I to feuce trao bouudrry, and 3 appealed to the Resident Magistrate • imder section 20 of the Fenoing Act, * 1881, to. fo a lino offence as between 1 the parties. The 8.M., with the 1 consent of botn parties, appointed 1 MrT Mackayto inspeot and report, ' Mr Mackay accordingly drew up a 1 report, which was \ substantiated ' by the report of another independent 1 person, to the effect that the emotion 1 of. a fence oi thY true'boundary ps | irnpolioable,' and that the fence ' in- existenco was the;best rand 1 most practicable line, of Mod'is 1 between the |\v i qpm'tles, '.'The-.M, \ deeded, in fyvor of, this.'line, ; and ' prdered.Moorelo pay a rental to 1 Douglas for the' land out oft. But notwithstanding ..; %, .; Wsjon, pf thoK.il,, an,d [ki assent of Douglas to, % wpa taken, which was evidenced by communications between himself and the'JUL, the defendant refused' to bound\ by the line adopted and put Ms stock on the land severed and committed various aots of trespass. The present action was, of course, the result: Forthepurpose of slioftgniog the case, it wasadniittoj by Mr Merttelth on of Douglas, thatvtJle amount, claimed was fair,. provide! that His Honour held.that;HoJ»'a was entitled under the dgpjaion of Hie Magistrate of the la lf' ' ' '-■■•■■/ The question, rested! upon tlid validity of the order of tho ii\l. ;Mr Menteath ; argiied ; that ; the 8.M.-, no.upawer-;.to.iaak^ltl>o Qi;a>r- .under section :,as >,he legislation' did noiintenid'that powers ralating.tp,titlo should be given to ah o.rdeV'didliot,:there'fdrd lako; from : Po^lWr: :^?''>Vv:;>': ;;-;^:-r-v'; ; -.'.;

a. Mr Beard contended that, {he 7 -. section of the Act was quite dear in < its terms, and that the Magistrate V had power to make the order; even *" e upon an ex park application. In r this case tho consent of Douglas had actually been obtained to the course adopted. > The only evidence taken was- that' ', of Colonel Roberts as to the assent given by, Douglas and hisycounsehai that time (Mr Bunny,) 1 ' au ' , After Imring fulhlrglMenf If counsel, the _ Court reserved its decision. JJ r if r ] * / 'j