Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


MAGISTRATE’S COURT, PORT CHALMERS. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) A Fencing Dispute. —Thomas Poinlon was charged with taking down and carrying away a portion of a fence, the property of the Queen and James De Clifford, of the value of LlO. Mr Finch appeared for complainant; Mr Platts for defendant.—James De Clifford stated that on June 30 he purchased section 36, Warrington, at auction. There was a post and barb wire fence round the section. About a fortnight after taking possession defendant called upon him and stated that he had put up the fence but had not received payment, and asked witness as he had purchased the section to pay him for the fence. Witness declined, and defendant said if ho was not paid for it he would pull it down. Witness told him if he had any claim he ought to send it to the person who instructed him to erect it, but not to attempt to pull it down or witness would have to take proceedings against him. Cn the 3rd hist, witness found that six chains of the fence had been removed from one side and about four chains from the other. It would cost about LI per chain to replace it. At the time he purchased the ground he was not aware that defendant had erected the fence, and did not know it was a custom that when persons had short tenancies they erected the fence on the road.—James Perry gave evidence as to defendant taking away the fence.—Defendant stated that he had leased the land with the adjoining section in July, 18S8, from Mr Simpson, but being only a yearly tenant he erected the fence some 2ft on the road, so as to be able to remove it at any time. After being in possession for a little over six months, he received a notice from Mr Simpson to give up possession within a month.' He called upon Mr Simpson in reference to the improve-! ments he had made, and that gentlemen forgave him the six months’ rent due. He was sure the fence was erected on the road, and as the complainant would not pay him for it he pulled it down and re-erected it on his ; own property.—His Worship inflicted a fine of Is, with costs (L2 17s), defendant to either replace the fence or pay LlO for damage done, in default four weeks’ im-

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TODAY., Evening Star, Issue 7982, 10 August 1889

Word Count

THE COURTS-TODAY. Evening Star, Issue 7982, 10 August 1889