HEDGE THAT WAS A FENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 178, 27 July 1923, Page 9

HEDGE THAT WAS A FENCE.

a SHOULD sNOT HA.YE . BEEN .CUT DOWN. Mr. E. C. Cutten. S.M., gave judgment this afternoon at the Magistrate's Court in a case arising out of an eleagnua hedge having bcifn cut down. Mrs. Mary Elizaibeth Byg»te (Mr. A. V. Fraer) claimed to recover £100 damages from Joseph Linton Eaedale (Mr. J. J. Sullivan). Plaintiff and defendant are neighbours in the parish of Takapuna. His Worship eaid the claim was for damages on the ground that defendant had wrongfully cut down the hedge between the two properties. The defence was that the hedge was on defendant's property. Mr. Cutten said a fence had been originally erected and the hedge was planted inside it. The fence had long since disappeared, and the hedge had been considered the boundary 'before the present litigants purchased their respective properties. His Worship said in his opinion it was a boundary fence, and therefore defendant had no right to cut it down against the will of plaintiff. As it would cost the plaintiff £25 for her share of the cost of erecting a close boarded fence, he considered she was entitled to that amount. Mr. Sullivan asked His Wonship regarding the question of jurisdiction which had 'been raised. Mr. Cutten said he was quite satisfied as to his jurisdiction. Mr. Sullivan then asked His Worship to fix amount for an appeal. Mr. Cutten said he would do • that when the application to appeal was made. Judgment was then entered for plaintiff for £25 with costs.