CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 9471, 16 August 1894, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before E. H. Carcw, Esq., S.M.)

Lakl'KNV. —The charge against John Carrie, which was before the Court a fortnight ago, Was withdrawn, Sergeant O'Neill explaining that accused was still too ill to appear. Maintenance.— An.application by Henry Harding for remission of arrears of maintcance for his daughters Anriic and Jane, due to the Industrial School, was refused, applicant being told to make his own arrangements with the manager of the institution. Indigent Child.— George Brown, a boy ten years" of age, who, according to the statement of Sergeant O'Neill, was uncontrollable and occasionally slept out frorii home, was committed to the Industrial School, Cavcrsham, to l)c brought up in the Presbyterian form of religion. The evidence of the mother showed that the boy was unmanageable, and that his lather's whereabouts bad not been known for eighteen months. She was, moreover, not in a position to maintain him, there being a family of eight) two of whom only were earning anything; Fencing Dispute.— Andrew M'Cabe was charged at the instance of Alexander Dick of a breach of the Fencing Act. Mr Baron appeared for the complainant, and the defendant was represented by Mr Sim—Mr Baron said the plaintiff Mas the occupier of sections 49 and 50, block 2, district of Portobello,and the defendant occupied land adjoining. A fence was required on the boundary line between the two properties, and plaintiff proposed that it should be No. 4 of Fence Act, 1891, to which the defendant objected, and proposed fence No. 11.—His Worship remarked that the dispute was as to the character of the fence. —Mr Sim : And position. —Mr Baron, continuing, said he was not aware that there was any dispute as to the boundary of the fence, but if there were he would be ready to meet it. He called Andrew Dick, the plaintiff, who said there was no dividing fence between the property, but there had been once. His objection to the fence proposed by the defendant was that it was not suitable for the soil. He used his land for cattle grazing, and the cattle would destroy the sod wall. The gradient of the land was too steep for a sod wall, and he could not obtain sods on the line of fence. He had been twenty-seven years in the district, and there was no fence thereabouts constructed like the one proposed bydefendant.—ln answertoHis Worshipwitness said that the mosteommonfence consisted of five to six wires and one rail, or six and seven wires and no rail. A small creek ran out of the line of fence, and this would be interfered with by what defendant proposed. —Richard Kerr and Joseph Dick gave evidence as to the unsuitability of defendant's proposed fence.—Mr Sim combated the statements as to the unsuitability of the fence, and pointed out wherein the parlies disagreed as to the boundary line. —After evidence in support of this by the defendant, John M'Laughhn, and John Sheppard, Hia Worship gave his decision aa follows:—The fence to be erected on the boundary proposed by the defendant—a portion to be constructed as the latter proposed, and the balance according to the proposal of the complainant—at the joint cost of both parties. Each party to pay his own costs of the legal proceedings.