FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19511, 15 December 1926, Page 15

FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

DISPUTE OVER A BOUNDARY. COURT ACTION AS SEQUEL. "He called mo every name in the calendar of abuse and told ma to go ahead aad prosecute as that was what he -wanted me to do," said Cornelius Bryan, senior, settler, of Huia (Mr. Cahill), in the Supreme Court yesterday concerning Thomas O'Brien, a neighbouring settler (Mr. Inder), whom he sued for £lO as damages for alleged trespass on the plaintiff's land at Huia. Bryan said he had seen O'Brien cutting trees and shrubs on a small triangular piece of land. He had told O'Brien that lie was trespassing and after showing him his title to the land, had warned him off. O'Brien then used abusive language and intimated that he would continue cutting the trees and shrubs until he was ordered to stop by the Court. Witness then erected trespass notices Cornelius Bryan, junior, a son of the plaintiff, produced a diary note relating to the dispute between his father and the defendant. ' - ■ Alfred Hill, farmer, of Huia, said he would pay £SO for the section in dispute. His Honor: I think the plaintiff, if he is wise, will take note of that offer. The defence was that the area concerned was shown as a road on the county map and the defendant and his predecessors had used the strip as a road for the past 40 years. Mr. Inder said it had been found that the plaintiff had a title to the area in dispute, and the defence concerning the title to the area had been withdrawn. O'Brien, counsel said, , had received notice to clear noxious weeds from his boundaries, and it was in pursuance of this notice and in the belief that a road existed that he had cut gorse and other rubbish. He had not cut any trees or shrubs. A sum of £1 had been paid into Court and it was suggested that this amount was sufficient to cover any injury done to the plaintiff. Giving judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, His Honor remarked that, on the evidence, ho could not see that Bryan had suffered a farthing in damages. However, he must receive the amount paid into Court. It was a great pity that the case had been brought. The defendant was awarded costs against the plaintiff.