CULVERDEN.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10450, 14 September 1899, Page 2

CULVERDEN.

Wednesday, Septembeb 13. (Before H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Rabbit Nuisance Act.—P. Childa and J. Hogan -were charged under this Act -with tailing to send returns of stock to J. G. S. Tonkin, the returning officer for the Hurunui Rabbit Board. Mr Scott appeared for the Board. Defendants did not appear. Evidence was given that the notices had been seat by post, and not returned from the Dead Letter Office. Defendants were conYicted, and ordered to pay costs 28s each.— A. M. Lewis, on the S3me charge, appeared, and said he had not received notice. As there was a doubt in this case, it was dismissed. Fskcixo Act.— W. Marshall v Mrs S. J. Stuart, claim £7 Oa 10d. Mr Helmore for plaintiff, Mr Weston for defendant. The plaintiff had fenced his land on Horsley Downs, 33 chains 53 links of seven wires, with standards 9ft apart, and strainers every 16 chains, with two intermediate posts, making a fence averaging 3ft 4in in height, and an average of 6 inches clear of the ground. The cost of constructing.it was 8s 6d per chain. Plaintiffs evidence was corroborated by J. Douglas, who, in reply to the Magistrate, said that was the usual kind of fence and the usual height, though the Fencing Act specified a legal fence must be 3ft 9in. No evidence was called for defendant. Mr Westons argument was that the fence was not in compliance with the Fencing Act, 1895, and defendant could not be called on to contribute. Mr Helmore contended that the Act entitled plaintiff to recover. The fence when first «rtct«d wm bttwMn plaintiff aad Uμ Ctowp .

bat sabseoaentlv defendant took up the Crown lamd as a grazing run, and became liaoie for a moiety of any existing boundary fence. He held that noVule applied to such fences, and that ttfe. description of fence specified in the Act did not extend to euch cases. The Magistrate pointed out that unless a fence "wae such fes specified in Schedule A of the Act, persons could not recover for trespass, and as a fence in a condition that it was not a legal fonce was practically useless within the meaning of the law. he did not see how he could hold that plaintiff should recover; but in deference to the argument raised by Mr Helmore, he would take time to consider the matter. He was convinced at present that the whole scope and tenor of tne Fencing Act was to refer only to fences such as were made in accordance with its provisions.