DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Issue 3920, 23 September 1891, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

K■■ ifiSfeEflTO tf—WEDNESD AY. (Before His Honour District -Judge Robinson, and a jury of four.) KENALL V. TAYLeR. This was a case in which A. W. ay Bonall claimed from Patience Tayler / £SO for the wilful destruction of a boundary fence and goise hedge. put in a plea that the was barred on account of the of the FenciDg Act. K Mr Bunny, for the plaintiff, argued that the case was not prejudiced by the provisions of the Act. His Honor ruled that he could not entertain the objections, as they did M not bar the jurisdiction. ■ Mr Bunny opened the case with a J brief reference to the circumstances rnder which it had arisen, and then called the plaintiff, Mr A W. Renal 1, who stated that he was the owner of the property alluded to. The boundary fence was erected in 1863 between his and the adjoining property. About that time he had to cut a drain, and at the same time.-wssted atiuW-rail fence. /A go'rse hedge was subset quijijy planted to prevent the drain and filled with waferevrss. In three or four years the hedge grew np and was a perfect fefice the whole length throughout, it was den etroyed by the defendant in the pre- < Bent action. The fence w«s very thick .f in some places. Jft was seven or eight K leet high. :i fence was on the ;v >"weßlern boundary, and was des- *■•' troyed about January, 1890. About three o'clock one day in January, Mrs Hall, whose cottage overlooked the fence, came to his mill and gave him certain information, in consequence of which he went out and sooii found that the fence was on fire. The plan of the property was here produced for the jury's inspection. Mr Renall, continuing, said that on '. getting in line with the fence so that ho soto3& see defendant's property, he saw defendant's husband, Edwin itely burning his g why he was doing plied (to the best of at he was endeavourthe rabbits. He shook his stick at reatened to break fence was now fence it was usee could get through e this it was an inland by its loss the creased in value, a fair sum to ask as not have had it y>—■•-" I eould not be ite. I did not know on fire until I went fleet the date exke action and don't have done so if first taken action dly know what Mt I think I told that I should take stood and saw him d gradually burning you see him carryrning the fence? iw him attending it. s it burning the ? fence. It was six or lid think. I have no ra mind that he e fence on fire. I proceeding at the )t if Tayler had not inst me. I was phce. I was conlong the road. I rtance to the rail nee had quite overis was no doubt cattle proof. I ed it. I will nothing could About ten years arned a bit of- the up again. 3 Court adjourned I