A RABBIT PROOF FENCE.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue LX, 31 October 1913, Page 3

A RABBIT PROOF FENCE.

The Gore Magistrate's Court (Mr H. A. Young, S.M., presiding) was engaged for sometime in hearing an application by Donald Muoro, for whom Mr Inder appeared, to have a non-rafcbit-proof fence between section 8, block VII, Wer.donside, and sections 1 and 2, block IV., Wendonside, the property of James Pollock and William Mortimer (for whom Mr Bowler appeared), converted into a rabbit-proof fence.

The evidence of Munro was to the effect that rabbits from the property of Pollock and Mortimer came on to pla'ntiff's property, to his loss and detriment. When he purchased the property he had discussed the matter of a wire-netting boundary fence with Pollock and it was arranged that the work should be done in the spr.ng after he had got his crop in. V. hen the spring time enme he had spoken to PollocK, who asked that the matter be delayed. Later when spoken to, Pollock declined to dc anything. The arrangement at first was that each party should erect his poition of the fer.ee. It was after Pollock, had refused to take action that witness had erected his portion of the fence. Since the erection of witness's portion of the fence he (witness) had pulled out the staples and wires and the nptting was now lying on the ground. He then gave legal notice to fencel

Cross-examined: The area of his property was about 980 acres* and a good deal of it was in its natural state. No one made much out of the land owing to the rabbits. Mr Borrie wire-netted about, two miles and a half of the fence on the opposite side of the property to Pollock's. The erection of a wire netting fence even on one side of Pollock'B farm would benefit witness as it would protect his crop. The only boundary of his farm not netted' was Pollock's. Millar's boundary was wire netted and witness had wii'e netted the road line boundary. He wanted to have the whole boundary wire-netted and then he hoped tn derive some benefit from his farm.

Robert Bartlett, manager for Munro, gave corrobative evidence which closed plaintiff's case.

James Pollock said his land was very clean as regards rabbits. He poisqned, trapped and ferreted. It was owing to the drought in December and January of last year that witness's crops were poor. The rabbits had nothing to do with the crops. It would cost him £IOO to wire-net his boundary, and he could not see his way clear to do it at the time.

William Mortimer and R. McDowell also gave evidence.

After counsel had addressed the court the magistrate said he was satisfied that a rabbit-proof fence was necessary for, the better working of the farm in question. It was clear that rabbits were plentiful, and if a wire-netting fence were erected the land would in time become valuable. Pollock admitted that the fence would be beneficial, but his objection to erecting it at the time was owing to having a poor harvest. He (the magistrate) copsidered that it would be reasonable and equitable for the defendant to pay half the cost of the fence. Such a fence would be an advantage to both parties and the improvements would be valued under the lease held from the School Commissioners. Five weeks would be allowed defendants in which to erect their portion of the fence (43 chains). Judgment would be for plaintiff accordingly with coßts amounting to £2 lis 2d.