TRESPASSING TREES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume C, Issue 11750, 30 November 1898, Page 6

TRESPASSING TREES.

A’ unique law case was* contested: last month in South Australia, The plaintiff is an amateur gardener residing in Adelaide,' and had plain feed a row -of pepper-trees-about 18in from the fence. As the trees grew the owner trimmed tho-branches on one side,' while his neighbour, the-defendant, attended to the other. The roots-of the pepper, trees advanced as far as 60 feet into the defendant’s nursery garden, and naturally-proved troublesome by taking away plant food from his trees and shrubs. A trench was dug along the fence, a. quantity of coarse salt emptied in and filled up again, with the result that a number of the trees were killed. The owner sued for damage* to hia (trees, and the defendant -pat in a- counter claim for damage of shrubs in hisi;gardea and nursery. . The Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, visited the spot and made careful examinations in the’ presence of lawyers and experts, and, after expressing surprise that no case of the kind had ever arisen berforo-rin .England or here, advised the panties to come together, his opinion being to the- effect that-—l. A man has’ a perfecteTight'to-plant trees close to his boundary, but if- the limbs overhang the neighbour's property the-neighbour-can cut off. the overhanging part, or give the owner notice to do so. If he-cuts off the branches he must, if required, throw them into the owner’s-property ; htehas no right' to them. 2. The same rule applies to the roots., Thcjneighbour may dig-a tranchrand cut the .roots on bis--boundary,.-or he may call on ! the owner to prevent them from trespass'ng into his property, and if the roots are allowed to trespass he-can claim damages if apy. is-done. Bntohe must not apply any foreign.substancs«to the’ soil. evela in hisjrfwn''property which will .spread into the owner’s land 'ot will be-canrim-kby the sap r into‘the trees, and-so damage-ror kill them.- - The case tines resolved itself into this: The'plaintiff was -entitled tojtkmages for the destruction of his trees. The defendant was entitled to damages to the amount of the loss he had sustaansd-from the trespass of the roots of the plaintiffs trees, and should, the-Latter contmuerto allow the roots of his' trees to trespass, the defendant could recover farther damages. The parties conferred, and decided to*stop proceedings, bear their own Losses, - and pay their own costs, and the plaintiff’.proiiused to remove the pepper-trees.