NEIGHBOURS AT LAW

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21177, 29 July 1940, Page 8

NEIGHBOURS AT LAW

ENCROACHMENT ALLEGED ORDER TO PAY £lO COUNTER-CLAIM DISMISSED A case in which plaintiffs stated that defendant’s house encroached oq their land and asked for its removal was heard before Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, today. Charles Sutherland St. Clair and Alma Jane St. Clair (Mr J. F. Strang) proceeded against Herbert John Warrington (Mr J. R. Fitz-Gerald). Defendant filed a counter-claim for £25. Setting out their claim plaintiff’s said that in November, 1939, they acquired a piece of land in Queen’s Avenue and erected a house. In 1922 defendant acquired the adquired the adjoining property on the comer of Queen’s Avenue and Fraser Street, and erected on it a house which had been discovered to encroach on plaintiff’s land. They asked Warrington to remove his house or the part which encroached, but defendant refused to do so. They asked the Court that he be ordered to give up the land encroached on. Evidence for plaintiff’s was given by Sidney Bennett Sims, surveyor, and by Charles Sutherland St. Clair. Allegations by Defence Warrington in his statement of defence said that he erected his house in 1922 but denied that it encroached upon the land acquired by plaintiffs. He admitted that he had refused to remove his house. Before action was brought by plaintiffs defendant offered to buy any land encroached on by his house. In his counter-claim for £25 Warrington said that last December St. Clair wrongfully cut down a hedge dividing the properties, and that while painting his clothes line he ■splashed defendant’s house with tar. He also felled a tree which fell on defendant’s land. To His Honour it was stated that the width of encroachment was 2 feet 9 inches. Of this about two feet was encroachment by the eaves, and the boundary line ran six inches through defendant’s house. Evidence by Warrington, George Stephenson Boyes, land valuer, and Doris Warrington was heard for the defence. Possession Retained His Honour made an order that defendant was entitled to retain possession of the piece of land built upon, subject to the payment of £lO. | No costs were allowed on the claim j or counter-claim, and the counter- ] claim was dismissed. On the pre- j paration of a plan a vesting order would, be made. His Honour said it was a pity that the matter should have been brought before the Court, which should not have been asked to adjudicate in such a small matter in which the rights of the parties were clear from the beginning. Dredging Shares The following are current quotations in London for New Zealand dredging shares: —Clutha River Company, buyers 4|d, sellers 7£d. Molyneaux River Company, buyers JJd. j tellers 4id.