CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 83, 7 August 1852, Page 9

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —In answer to a letter that appeared in the Lyttelton Times of the 31st instant, signed ' Agricola,' I wish simply to state a few facts. In the first case alluded to, Wilson, the principal witness for the plaintiff, swore that Jackson's fence measured 5 ft. 6 in. from the bottom' of the ditch to the top of the bank, and that it was'the same size, or within one inch, of the Horticultural fence and Mr. Brittan's ; on this evidence the damages were given to the plaintiff. Now the facts are as follows, —the Horticultural fence is 7 ft. high, Mr. Brittan's 6 ft, Jackson's 5 ft. ; even according to Wilson's statement on oath, there is 6 inches difference between Jackson's and Mr. Brittan's fence, and 18 inches difference between Jackson's and the Horticultural. At the same time, I have five witnesses, who have measured Jackson's fence up the slope from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the bank, and make it only 5 feet, the actual perpendicular height being about 4 ft. 6 in. "The other peculiar feature in the case was that a number of cows are turned on about 120 acres, and about 100 out of the 120 have been recently burned off." Truth here is as conspicuous as in the first instance : Jackson's statement in Court was, 60 acres and 14 head of cattle ; now at the time of the alleged trespass, we had only 4 cows on the land, having driven all the others out; that one or two returned again from time to time I am aware, but they were always driven back again. There is not above one quarter of the 100 acres mentioned burnt, I only wish it had been so ; the ' recently' I suppose means 4 or 5 months ago, and the young grass is now the most beneficial to new calved cows, and I venture to state that there is.not a better natural winter pasture in the colony, as the condition" of the cattle will shew. Now, as for compensation, we offered to pay the plaintiffs at a higher rate for the damages done than two disinterested parties had valued the crops at. " But it does not appear that Mr. Worsley has made the slightest attempt to fence;" now if this means any thing, it is that we are bound to fence in our neighbours as well as our own land ; our cultivated land we have already fenced in ; round our pasture two rivers form a natural fence, we have paid £10 for a bridge over one of these rivers, and put up posts and rails on it; so that our land is entirely fenced in. Again, this anonymous writer argues that because parties are obliged to make sufficient fences, " it destroys the security of both parties, and is calculated to cause more ill will amongst different classes than any other circumstance which could happen;" we modestly hint that he might have excepted his own letter, for surely a peace-maker should not urge to war with all the eloquence of which he is capable. But what is the law of the case—is there to be a sufficient fence or not? The law says, there must be. What then is a sufficient fence ? A 5 feet ditch and bank with a post and 2 rails, making 7 feet from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the rail, this is what experience has shown to be a sufficient fence at the older settlement of Nelson ; and tbe fences round the Horticultural gardens are the same dimensions : but suppose the Magistrates should agree that a fence 5 inches high was sufficient, would that make it so ; are not the Magistrates bound to administer the law, not to make it? Therefore, if a fence 5 ft. 6 in. high is not sufficient, (as every body knows it is not,) how can a Magistrate conscientiously give damages in such a case ? In conclusion, I must say, it appears to me •most astonishing that any educated man as tlie writer appears to be, should take upon himself the awful responsibility of pointing the way to crime and lawless acts as he has done in the last paragraph of his letter. I remain, Sir, Yottr's &c., H. F. Worsley. Christchurch, August 3, 1552.