HEDGE DESTRUCTION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 16 October 1924, Page 2

HEDGE DESTRUCTION.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. . The cutting down of a hedge resulted m a claim for damages being heard in the Eltham Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday afternoon. Mary McMenamin (Mr. A. Chrystal), milliner, of Eltham, claimed £l7 9s 9d from J. Bootten (Mr. J. Sheat), of Eltham, settler. In her statement of claim the plaintiff said that on August 21 the defendant wrongfully destroyed a portion of the live hedge dividing the parties’ properties. Therefore the plaintiff claimed £l2 9s 9d as the price of erecting a suitable fence to replace the destroyed hedge, and £5 general damages. The plaintiff said that she originally bought the property in 1908, and sold it again in 1919, but repurchased it in August this year. The macrocarpa hedge had always been on the property. When she occupied the property the defendant did not raise any complaints about the hedge. In August she found the edge of the hedge cut down. She asked Mr. Bootten about it, and he said that he had cut the portion and intended to cut the rest. This he had done. . The hedge was a windbreak and allowed privacy in her yard. She had received a letter from the defendant, in which he claimed that the hedge was on his side of the property. A board fence would replace the destroyed hedge. H. D. Shepard, a carpenter, gave evidence as to the cost of ereeigng a new fence. He considered that the only damage to the section would be the loss through lack of privacy Mr. Sheat, in applying for a nonsuit, submitted that there was no proof as to when the trees were removed. The plaintiff was not definite about the date. That was important, because till August 13 the plaintiff was only a mortgagee. No evidence was forthcomign from the plaintiff on which the court could base a correct date. The plaintiff would not deny that the trees were on the . defendant’s property; therefoi’e he had the right to remove the trees. Furthermore, he held that the trees did not comprise a fence. Replying, to Mr. Sheafs points, Mr. Chrystal admitted that they were not in a position to state the correct date. Even if the plaintiff was not the physical occupier, she was nevertheless the occupier of the property from the date when the previous occupier left it. Air. Chrystal quoted authority to show that although a man found boundary trees on his property he could not destroy them without first applying to a magistrate under the Fencing Act. His Worship refused the application for a non-suit. •John Stewart Murray, licensed surveyor, said that at the hack of the property there was a macrocarpa stump 2ft. 3in. on Bootten’s side of the true houndary. For three-quarters of the length of the belt the trees were Ift. Sin. from the boundary, and the tree nearest wa ; s Ift. Gin. inside Bootten’s section. In his opinion the trees bad been erected as a shelter belt. The defendant said the reason why he wished to remove the fence was