NEIGHBOURS AT LAW

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1925, Page 2

NEIGHBOURS AT LAW

SOME FENCING OVER FENCING. JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF, A civil action which incurred considerable legal argument was heard at. the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Air W. Meldrum, S.M., when Mrs Christina McKane, wife of Air Albert AlcKane, Borough gardener, claimed from James Smith Alexander the sum of £3 7/24. Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for plaintiff and Air Doogan for defendant. Counsel for plaintiff said the ease was a suit brought under the provisions of the Fencing Act 1908, for half the cost of some fencing which was erected by the plaintiff between their two properties, after due notice had been given to the defendant. One provision of the Fencing Act made it clear that the maximum amount to be allowed within a Borough for half cost of fencing was 35/- per chain. The plaintiff held the lease of the property. No cross notice had been served and counsel contended that his client was entitled to half cost. Albert Henry AlcKane, husband of the plaintiff, said he had assisted to make the fence, which was construct ed by Air Clark, contractor. The fence was in accord with the provis ions of tho fencing act. To Air Doogan: The efence was constructed on Sunday, July 5, Mr Clark au'tl two assistants (including witness) built the fence. Mr Clarke was a fully qualified carpenter. Witness’s account was for 4} hours, the other having worked 44 hours. The rate of labour was at the rate of 31/0 per chain. Air Doogan said the time would work out at four shillings per hour, a total of £2 4/- for labour, or eight shillings if only one man had been cn.

,— no t correct. Three men were engaged on the work, '’-"•inuing, witness said considerable ability was required for the work When he estimated the job, he put down the labour at £3. Tho part of the property fronting Reid Street had not yet been fenced. Airs McKane had been in possession of the property since Jan uary. AVitncss had nover received any cross notice.

Mr Doogan said that on June 6th., last, two days after the notice was served on defendant, a counter proposal was lodged by the defendant at tho Office of Messrs Guinness and Kitch ingham. Counsel submitted that see ing that the counter proposal had been served it would save considerable time if. sueh were taken into consideration. Mr Joyce said nothing had been received bv his client until July 16th, when a letter was received from Messrs Guinness and Kitchingham announcing that a notice had been served on Air Alexander. His Worship held that the question was whether the present charge was a fair one, or was excessive when compared with the cost had defendant done the work himself, John Clark, carpenter and build ei; gave evidence to the effect that he constructed the work foV.„Mrs McKane. Witness estimated the fencing was worth about 35/- per chain. That was a very reasonable charge. To Mr Doogan: Tho job was not reckoned up by the hour. Tho charge was for the whole job. Counsel for the defence submitted that, because of the cross notice thai was Raged and left with Messrs Guinness and Kitchingham, the dispute should have been settled by a Magistrate before the fence was erected, otherwise the whole spirit of the fenc ing Act was gone. Counsel then called Air Revell, of the legal firm of Guinness and Kiteliingham, who gave evidence to the effect that defendant delivered a letter to him on June 6th last. The letter stated that defendant was willing to have the matter settled amicably and it was agreed that wit ness, Air F. A. Kiteliingham and do fendant go down to plaintiff’s to try and bring about an amicable agreement.

Mr Doognn: Did you go? 'Witness: No. Mr Doogan: I can’t ask you why, suffice.-it to say that you didn’t go. Continuing, witness stated that on June Bth., Mr McKane ceased to employ the firm as his solicitors. To Mr Joyce: Witness could not say what took place between Mr Kitching and. Mr Mr-Kane. Frederick A. Kiteliingham said be was present when Mr Alexander brought the letter in. Witness suggest cd that Mr Revell should go down and try and settle the matter on the ground. Defendant was agreeable to that. He could not say if the contents of the letter were delivered to Mr or Airs McKane. To Mr Meldrum: Witness could not say whether he suggested to Mr MeKane that he and defendant should each construct half of the fence. Afte" the interview witness no longer represented plaintiff. James S. Alexander, defendant, said he had received a letter from plaintiff on May 26th offering to supply the. material and do the work. Witness replied to that on May 29th. On June 4th he received the fencing notice and on June 6th he went to Guinness and Kitchingham and lodged a counter proposal. Mr Kitchingham informed witness that the matter could bo easily fixed up and promised to send down Mr Revell.' However, Air Revell never came. Witness had told'Air McKane that he was willing' for 'any sort of: fence. He eonld have done the work himself, and could have got the timber at 13/6 per hundred.

Air Doogan submitted that bad Reeling existed between the two neighbours. Alrbjoyce: I object to that. We don’t want to be here all day over this. I" Mr Doogan: I submit there is bad feeling between the trio. Air Joyce: Oh, don’t talk nonsense, we don’t want to hear if anyone’s fowls- have been scratching, or someone’s ducks hart' been fighting. . His Worship held that defendant had not. put in a. proper cross notice and that plaintiff was justified in going on with the work. A small allow-

aace would be made for the price Of the timber n>.ul labour. He would allow 10/3 off the timber and 7/3 off the labour. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £2 10/- with costs £1 16/- and witness’ expensese, 16/-.