RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 81, 24 July 1852, Page 10

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

17th July. (Before Messrs. Godley, Fitton, Phillips, Woolcombe, and Wakefield.)

Trealevan v. Stace. —The defendant had contracted to build two cottages for the plaintiff and his partner, Wheeler; all materials to be found, and his labour to be paid in sawn timber -. this was in January last; a settlement of accounts being agreed to within the last few weeks. A sawyer, named Woodford, was called in to value the cottages, who valued them at so low a rate that defendant was dissatisfied, the plaintiff having charged Stace tbe highest market price for the timber—2os. per hundred feet. The defendant had had the cottages valued by another carpenter, who had put a considerably higher value upon them. The bench in their decision considered the first valuation, the value having been agreed upon by both parties, to be the one to be adhered to ; but as, by the testimony of witnesses, the average price of timber at the time was below 205., that price was reduced to 19s. This would reduce the balance claimed by the plaintiff to £4 19s. 3d.

The Court was occupied a considerable time in the case of George Jackson v. H. F. Worsley. — Plaintiff had obtained judgment against defendant a few weeks back for trespass; he had since repaired the fence damaged by the cattle, which had, however, again been broken down, and further injury done to his vegetables. Four of Jackson's neighbours were in court to prosecute defendent also, for trespass. As the case, therefore, was the leader of the others, it was gone into very fully and excited much interest. The size of the fence was sworn to by several witnesses to be 4ft. 6in. across, and sft. Bin. from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the bank. The trespass was proved ; but Mr. Godley iv summing up, entered at great length into the subject, giving it as the opinion of himself and the Magistrate's then present, that a fence of

the above dimensions was not sufficient. It would be therefore, he said, their duty to dismiss the case, and he would call a meeting of Magistrates purposely that all might come to one unanimous understanding upon the point, that a fence should be deemed a sufficient protection against trespass when 6 feet broad at top, 3 f eet deep, and with a bank three feet high. Mr Godley added that it would be of the utmost importance to the public that this be clearly understood, as it was likely that cases of trespass would lie frequently occurring unless fences of sufficient size were universally adopted. In consequence of this decision, the other cases were not gone into.