CIVIL CASES.

Bruce Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 3143, 20 February 1900, Page 5

CIVIL CASES.

Peter Williamson v. W. Duff. —Mr D. Beid appeared for plaintiff, and Mr N. Paterson for defendant. An action under the *' Fencing Act " aa to the erection of a dividing fence between section ] , Block VI, Waihola district, and section 22, Block VIII, Clarendon district, the property of plaintiff, and sections 2, 3, and 4, the property of defendant. — After Peter Williamson had given evidence it was agreed by counsel to draw up and sign an agreement appointing two responsible men as arbitrators to decide in what manner the fence was to be erected. James Bennett v. G. S. Hall. — An application for judgment for the sum of £12 11s 3d being the half the costs of repairing a boundary fence. — In this adjourned case Mr D. Reid appeared for plaintiff, and Mr N. Paterson for defendant. The sum ol £7 12a had been paid into court, the indebtedness of the balance being denied. All witnesses were ordered out of Court beyond hearing. James Bennett farmer, residing at Lovells Flat, said defendant Hall was his neighbor. He remembered entering into an agreement (produced) with Hall about the erection of • fence. Witness completed the work as specified on September 16, and had it inspected by Mr Robert Hewitson from whom he got a certificate (produced) which he forwarded to defendant. Witness afterwards wrote to defendant (letter produced) asking" him whether he wished the account to be rendered to himself or his solicitor. Defendant replied (letter produced) that, he could • render it to either himself or his solicitor, and also a certificate (produced) signed by Mr A. Hewitson and Mr Pateison, valuing the work at a far lower price than Mr Robt. Hewitaon did. The fence erected was a good one. The ground in the vicinity was very difficult to dig, being very rocky, and in nraking post holes a crowbar had to be wed. Plaintiff put 10 new straining posts at Is 6d each, 30 bluegums at 6d, and 200 stakes at 2d each in the fence and had charged £1 7s 6d for carting material ; also £1 damages caused by defendants bull and cow breaking into his property. Cross-examined : He claimed £1 damages in accordance with the "Cat'le Trespass Act." Ihe cattle were in the paddock where he usually grazed his horses. Wi tness appointed Robert Hewitson to inspect the fence, and admitted that defendant did offer to settle the matter by arbitration, but he (witness) refused. He was not a practical fencer but could do a little at any trade. Mr Paterson : You infer then that you might be a baker in a small way. Witness : Yes I can do a little at that and con Id mend your boots if you wanted some cobbling done. Two shillings per chain, he said, would not be a reasonable price for fencing. Robert Hewitson said he inspected the fence and would not erect it for 4s per chain, The • strainers ' used in the erection of the fence would be worth about 2s each and the posts 6d. The charge of carting the material— £l 7s 6d — was a reasonable one. He did not think plaintiff was a man that would charge for work he never performed. Cross-examined : Six and sixpence per day was not an adequate wage for a fencer, and four shillings per chain was not too big a charge tor the work Bennett did. To Mr Reid : The work of repairing an old fence was almost as laborious as erecting anew one. . Evidence was also given by William Frazer and David Bryce. Mr Paterson submitted with regard to the charge for trespass, under the "Impounding Act, 1884 " schedule B, plaintiff waß entitled to the actual damage done to the fence which would be about Is instead of £1. The land where the cattle trespassed was red tussock dnd practically valueless. He also submitted that his client was as much entitled to appoint a competent man as piaintiff was. The material put into the fence was not what was required, neither was the fence a suitable one for the country. George S. Hall said he saw the fence before and after the repairs were made. The account for repairing same had been rendered to him and he did not think the charge; was a reasonable one, the fence erected' being unsuitable in many ways Witness considered that Is was a maximum charge for the " strainers." The ground where his cattle broke through was worth very little, in fact he said his cattle did it good by trespassing on it. Cross-examined He admitted that plaintiff had on different occasions complained to him about his cattle being a nuisance. He repaired the fence where the cattle last broke through. Witness denied going to R. Hewitson to ask hitn the value of the work done, and did "Ot consider it was 'worth What was charged. Andrew Hewijson sai4 b.e had a great deal of experience in fencing, and considered a man could make good wages on the kind of work which Mr Bennett did at 2s per chain. William Paterson and Charles Bowie also gave evidence. ? Mr Re'ifl said that he woul^ ask for judgment in the full amount churned. His client was perfectly justified in cpming to the conclusion that defendant would pay fcajftho coste if lie carried out the work p~— - r - —

I aooording to the Bpeoificationß. Plaintiff i ! swore that he performed every 'iota of the. work charged for, and he did not think there was any reason to doubt him A J* l * 0 * and a farmer who would quarrel over Is 6d being charged for nine stakes and only want to pay 2sd for them would quarrel over anything. The evidence of his client wfts thatsf< a prapti^ -fflanjv and^he? ?con:siiJered th% in justic^.€e" waß V«itiWed to judgment for the. lull afeonnt. --•' ,i '■> -. His Worship, in giving judgment, commented upon the long time— nearly 4hrs — -yhich thecaße had pcqupied, the items in dispute being absurdly^ sm»U: Mr Hall by paying the £7 12 a into Goirt had only com-promised-matters. Plaintiff s great point was that he did the work and Hall stood by and looked on without doing anything in the matter. Judgment for plaintiff was accordingly given for £9 14s 4d, with costs, £18s; :