PEPPER TREES AND A GARDEN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 160, 8 July 1899, Page 3 (Supplement)

PEPPER TREES AND A GARDEN.

A unique law case was contested in South Australia recently. The plaintiff is an amateur gardener residing- in Adelj aide, and had planted a row of pepper trees about 18 inches from the fence. As j the trees grew, the owner trimmed the branches on one aide, while his neighbour, the defendant, attended to the other. The roots of the pepper trees advanced so far as 60 feet into the defendant's nursery garden, and naturally proved troublesome by taking away plant food from his trees and shrubs. A trench was dug along the fence, and a quantity of coarse salt emptied in and filled up again, with the result that a number of the trees were killed. The owner sued for damage to his tres, and the defendant put in a counter claim for damage of shrubs in his garden and nursery. The Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, visited the spot, and made careful examination in tho presence of lawyers and experts, and after expressing surprise that no case of the kind had ever arisen before in England or Australia, advised the parties to come together, his opinion being to the effect that—l. A man has a perfect right to plant trees close to his boundary, but if the limbs overhang the neighbour's property the neighbour can cut off the overhanging part, or give the owner notice to do so. If he cuts off the branches, he must, if required, throw them into the owner's property. He has no right to them. 2. The same rule applies to the roots. The neighbour may dig a trench and cut the roots on his boundary, or he may call on the owner to prevent them from trespessing into his property; and if the roots are allowed to trespass he can claim damages if any is done. But he must not apply any foreign substance to the soil, even in his own property, which will spread into the owner's land, or will be carried by the sap into the trees, ana so damage or kill them. The case thus resolved itself into this. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the destruction of his trees. The defendant was entitled to damages to the amount of' the loss he had sustained from trespass of the roots of the plaintiff's trees, and should the latter continue to allow the roots of his trees to trespass, the defendant could recover further damages. The parties conferred, and decided to stop proceedings, bear their own losses, and pay their own costs, and plaintiff promised to remove the pepper trees.