FARMERS IN COURT

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 55, Issue 32714, 17 May 1946, Page 5

FARMERS IN COURT

BULLS TRESPASSING

MANGATARATA TROUBLE

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

Judgment for defendant was given in a claim for trespass under the Impounding Act in the Thames Court before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M. Plaintiff was Arthur Skinner, farmer of Mangatarata (Mr P. Jensen) and the defendant Charles William Schultz, farmer of Ngatea (Mr C. J. Garland of Auckland). The amount of the claim was of £53/14/0. Plaintiff owned a dairy farm adjoining the C. A. Ansford estate, of which S’chultz was trustee, said Mr Jensen. It was Schultz’s practice to use the property for holding bulls which he 'bought from other farms he owned elsewhere. These bulls had been causing considerable trouble among Skinner’s stock by breaking through the fence between the farms. East November the question of fences was referred to arbitration and Schultz had erected his half of the fence but the bulls were still trespassing.

(Describing the fence, Mir Jensen said that it complied with the provisions of the Fencing Act to make it a ‘‘sufficient” fence. For Several Years

Giving evidence for her husband, Teresa Charlotte Skinner said that the bulls had 'been trespassing for several years. This season 11 bulls had come on to their property. Although the fence was in. good condition, about 14 posts were broken off at the bottom. In November, she had impounded seveal bulls at Waitakaruru. To return a heifer which had strayed on Schultz’s property, it had been necessary, to break down the fence, for a short distance.

Questioned by Mr Garland, Mrs Skinner said she did not know of any other posts being rotten. No work had been done to the fence during the period of arbitration. 'Expressing, doubt as to whether a fence with 14 posts rotted could come within the meaning of the 'Fences Act, Mr Freeman suggested a settlement. However, as no agreement was reached, the case continued, W. Cropp, of Mangatarata, being called by, Mr Jensen.

Describing the fence, he said it appeared to be in quite good condition. Replying to Mr Garland, he said that he had noticed that of the first 12 posts, four were without staples. Judgment was entered for defendant for £5/(870 witness expenses, £3/070 solicitors fees, and an order was made for the amount paid into court, £371470, to be paid to defendant.