COURT IN OPEN AIR

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 184, 3 May 1934, Page 4

COURT IN OPEN AIR

Evidence Heard on Farm Property The unusual procedure of holding a court in the open air was adopted by Mr. E. Page. S.M.. at Lower Hutt yesterday in a case in which Phillip Walters, market gardener, claimed £5/10/damages from Walter Kilminster. farmer, for alleged trespass by sheep. After hearing the addresses by counsel engaged in the case, Mr. Page elected to inspect, the locality, taking with him the principal witnesses, whose evidence was given on the land. Returning to the Lower Hutt .Magistrate’s Court, Mr. Page heard further submissions by counsel, and then-ad-journed the case to decide whether the land was fenced sufficiently within the meaning of the Act, and. if not. whether any action could be taken for damages. . Mr. E. D. Blundell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. R_. Barrett for defendant. Mr. Blundell said that the properties of plaintiff and defendant were adjoining, and plaintiff claimed compensation for damage done to bis gooseberry plants and vegetables by lambs from defendant’s land. There was a seven-wire fence separating the land, and at the bottom the strands were fairly narrow to prevent stock from getting through. About November of last year defendant had a number of sheep and lambs on bls property next, to plaintiff’s land. Tn draining his Iqnd. defendant dug a ditch alongside the fence, and at one part there had been a subsidence, through which it was easy for the lambs to gain access to plaintiff’s property. That was what had happened. Defendant, submitted Mr. Blundell, knowing that there was a hole in the fence, was negligent in allowing his lambs to graze on the land, and in not filling in the hole and taking adequate precautions to prevent the lambs from wandering. , Mr. Barrett contended that the barrier between the properties did not constitute a sufficient fence. It was in a state of disrepair, and defendant denied that there was any drain, as bad been suggested. There was a slight depression alongside the fence, caused some years ago by draining the cowbails. Defendant had not received any complaints previously of trespass by bis lambs. Before adjourning the case. Mr. Page observed that defendant and plaintiff had previously had differences over malodorous fertilisers.

“There is an old saying that ‘Bad fences make bad neighbours.’” and I would suggest'that both parties try to make their fences and relations, work amicably.” said Mr. Page.