FENCING DISPUTE

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 293, 11 December 1929, Page 8

FENCING DISPUTE

EX-MINISTER AS DEFENDANT. , JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. An ex-Minister of the Crown', Mr. K. S. Williams, M.P., was the defendant in a case whieh was decided by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiffs Avere B. A. Laurie, E. T. Laurie and C. C. Laurie. They claimed . £37 1/6, half the cost of a dividing fence between the properties of the parties at Taupaki. ' . Mr. A. Milliken represented the plaintiffs and Mr.-Haigh the defendant. Mr. Milliken said plaintiffs endeavoured to get defendant, to. erect a fence. Defendant . referred them to his Auckland agent, Mr. A. B. Robertori. As the matter had been dragging on and nothing was being; done a fencing notice was issued under the Fencing Act. No cross.notice was ■received by plaintiffs, who thereupon proceeded to erect a new fence in the terms of the fencing notice. After the work had been carried out the account was forwarded to Mi - . William, who referred the matter to his agent in Auckland. Mr. Robcrton inspected the fencing in conjunction .with a retired farmer. Mr. Hawkes. and together they disputed certain, items in the account. They maintained that 16 puriri nosts, 30cwt of plain; wire and 2cwt of barbed wire, valued at £7 2/3, had been overcharged. They further contended that material from the old fence was worth '£17 1/5. and. also that plaintiffs had overcharged for 15 chains of clearing of the fence line at 3/ per chain. For tlie defendant Mr. Haig contended that the new material and old material as valued by plaintiffs should be deducted from the total cost of the fence. £60 6/11. reducing'the cost to £30 3/3. . of which defendant's share was £18,1/8. The defendant admitted liability for 25 chains of clearing of the fence line at a cost of £3 5/, to be added to his half share, making a total of £21 16/8. Tin's was on the understanding that plaintiffs kept all the materials from the old fence. -As an alternative proposition the defendant offered to take over all tli» old maten."l at his own valuation and nav ti,o *„ ni of £ o S 18/] . f „ settlement of all his liability exists S\ Gvsdc, V*< thai «f everts had been riven, the mao^tnte f fuU r a e l Jm \" n r t f ° r *htwS Z lull amount claimed, with costs.