DAMAGES CLAIM

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 290, 7 December 1944, Page 6

DAMAGES CLAIM

WHITFORD DISPUTE NEIGHBOURS AT VARIANCE Evidence of gates having been sawn into three pie'ces and the loss of four heifers, which he valued at £12 each, was given in the Supreme Court to-day by James* Alexander Currie, who, with his wife, Ethel Hilda Currie, is plaintiff in an action in which they claim £398 damages from George J. H. Andrews. The hearing began before Mr. Justice Blair on Monday, Mr. Wills appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. Quartley for the defendant. The parties are neighbouring farmers at Whitford, and the question at issue is whether a portion of a property purchased by the plaintiffs is a public road or not. Plaintiffs allege that Andrews cut the gates, and, in addition to the damages claimed, plaintiffs ask for an injunction restraining defendant from entering the property. Plaintiff's Allegations To-day, the plaintiff said he purchased the property in July, 1943. It was then all fenced, except a portion of the north-east boundary. There was a gate on the northern boundary and it was this gate which had subsequently been cut in pieces. Fencing posts had also been sawn off and fencing wires cut. The first suggestion plaintiff heard that the track was a public road was when Andrews mentioned it. It was admitted that he had cut the chain on the gate. Andrews had made threats about doing damage to the gates and had said that if plaintiff did not remove the gates he (Andrews) would. Plaintiff told him to go ahead. Defendant said he would cut the gates to pieces and plaintiff alleged he had done so. He wanted the gates removed so that he could go up and down to his property. Because of the destruction of the gates plaintiff had lost four heifers. Plaintiff gave Andrews permission to walk through the property, but not to drive vehicles through, and told him if he did so plaintiff would not be responsible for what happened to him.

Corroborative evidence was given by Ethel Hilda Currie, wife of the previous witness. The defendant, George J. H. Andrews, said the road in dispute gave him access to his farm and he had always been led to believe it was a public road. The defendant claimed it was private property, but gave him permission to use it, but in May last the plaintiff refused him permission and threatened to do him serious injury if he continued to use the road. Defendant admitted he Had cut the chain which had locked the gate, but denied doing any of the other, damage complained of. Defendant had complained to the police about Currie's threats, but the police took no (Proceeding.)