DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3921, 24 September 1891, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

I MASTERTON-WEDNESDAY. (Before His Honour Districb Judge Robinson, and a jury of four.) RENALIi V. IAYr-ER. Cross-examined by Mr Beard, A. W. Renall stated : The gorse hedge should be trimmed at least once every twelve months. I did not employ any partisular person to cut the gorse, as I expected my tenants to do it. Prior to the fire, I frequently cleaned out my drain. The property is reduced by £3O or £4O on account of the fire. 1 do not know bow the amount of damages are assessed. I calculated it roughly at £SO. By Mr Bunny : Portions ol the post and rail feDce are now standing. Patrick Mulcahy deposed that he was at one time occupant of the property adjoining Mrs Tayler. He knew a gorse boundary fence to have been erected. This fence had been burnt by Mr Tayler. Witness complained to Tayler at the time;, and asked him if he had authority £rora Mrs Tayler to burn it. The fence was a thick gorse one before it wo-'s destroyed. The fence was a good oq'e. and was cattle proof. It afforded 'shelter, and would be benoficial tq Mr Renall in this respect. / By Mr Beajrd: He saw Tayler lighting on his side of the fence. Has had never asked Tayler's permission to burn the gorse himself. Tie' had not seen fire before. He could not estimate the loss sustained by the destruction of the fence. George Henry Shute, sawmiller, deposed that he knew the property occupied by Mrs Tayler. He had leased it himself for eight or ten years, and found the ground swampy on his side of the boundary fence. The fence was in good condition during the term of his occupation, but he could not say anything about it at the time it was destroyed. He did not consider there was any fencs at the present time, it having been destroyed. The fence would improve the value of the land. He would think the property had depreciated in value through the destruction of the fence. A good live fence would be worth £3 or £4 a chain. He did not think £57 would replace it. By Mr Beard: A gorse hedge which was allowed to spread would be a bad thing. Ic would be very good if kept in check. The hedge looked as though Borne was burnt at one time and some at another. Edward Tayler, s*orn, stated he was husband of the defendant, wto had a lease of the property as. the Bishop's reserve for^--" 5 " Mrs Tayler had been>^ o " e 88KJ8rof the place since Mav 1889. gje consulted his wife be*"" 6 d° iafr /xrotk on ihSLj£2}l2Bfrbeen done. The only boundary between Mrs Tayler's property and that of Mr Renall was a creek. There was a mass of gorse extending for several chains in patches and a portion of a fence. Mr Bunny: You have property 1 The witness : No. Mr Runny: Have you heen discharged from the Bankruptcy Court? The witness ; I was discharged eighteen months ago. Besides it has nothing to do with you, Mr Bunny. Mr Beard ; I must object to this evidence. His Honor ruled that the question of bankruptcy had nothing to do with the case. The witness, continuing, stated that he bad burned patches of gorse which had been grabbed up, but the fire did not extend fencing line. By J*r Beard : His wife took posinMay, 1889,' but had been over it previously to ascertain ics condition. The gorse mo extended about three oSrfw irom the drain. The gorse fence wan jn a better state now than it was whpit he took possession. The fire had apparently been through it before. Neither "Mrs Tayler or himself had interfered with the fence since they took possession. The gap in the fence had been caused by the cattle crossing it to go into the Bishop's reserve. Nothing was said about the burning of the fence until about a week before the last action. Mr Bunny : Can you get to the lead from Mrs Tayler's property without any difficulty ? The Witness : I can. Mr Bunny : You wish the jury to believe this ? The Witness : 14°. Mr Bunny: Ttjen you're worse than I thought youuyere. (Laughter.)

Mr Beard : Mr Tayler has been rought as a witness by my friend. a Mr Bunny : But he's worse than I h bought he waa. Patrick Mnlathy, re-called, stated a hat ho had seen posts and rails atone a r two places along the boundary, .'aylnr was not burning near the post r nd rail fence, Tiyler had put up labs atter the fire. Edward Tayler, re-called by the j }°.ncb, stated that he had put up no t lahs since the fire. Jiirgen Hofieins, sworn, stated that »e leased a portion of the Bishop's reierve. He knew the boundary be- s ,ween Mrs Tayler and Mr Renal), and vas aware that there was a gorse I ence. He had several times seen rayler firing the gorse. ] By Mr Beard: Mrs Tayler and limself had never crossed words, i ilthough he had impounded Mrs Tay« ler's cow. He saw Tayler setting fire : bo the gorse fence. Francis William Parker deposed that he knew the properties of the plaintiff and'defendant. He had known them for eight or nine years. A gcrse hedge was the boundary, which was two or three feet from the mill lead. Four years ago the fence was a good one. There were indications of* post and rail tence. He did not consider there was any fence at all at the present time. He should imagine it was destroyed by fire. In his opinion the fire bad depreciated the value of Mr Ranall's property to the extent of £3 10s or &i per chain. By Mr Beard: He valued a live fence at three times that of an ordinary fence. If a gorse fence was allowed to spread it would bo worse than no fence at all. Tlio hedge in 1889 was in such a shee that cattle could not get through i*. j James Russell, atchiteot and engineer, deposed that ho had frequently sern the properties of the plaintiff and defendant, but had not paid ranch attont'on to them for the past two or three years. Prior to that time there was a good substantial -feuoQj which was a protection to the pa«his«Sr" two or three months ago wR* destroy I'd, He considered the B'im of £SO a res2&&±. able value for the hedge. By Mr Beard: He could not say whether a fire had previously been through the gorse. He looked upon gorse hedges as things which beautified a farm. He was not prepared to say whether there were holes in the fence two years ago. This was the case for the plaintiff. The Court then adjourned till next day.