CLAIM FOR TRESPASS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10331, 14 July 1919, Page 5

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS

MAGISTERIAL JUDGMENT RESPONSIBILITY OF LANDOWNERS. In Lhe Magistrate’s Court on Saturday Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., gave judgment iu the ease G. H. Hunt v. L. Morrison, a claim for £Ol damages caused to plaintiff's tomato crop aud to gate and fencing through the trespass of a number of bullocks, the property of defendant. Mr P. W. Jacksou appeared for plaintiff and Mr O. Deere for defendant.

The magistrate said the claim was alternately based on trespass and negligence. The evidence tendered was not Free from contradiction. The facts were that a mob of 19 bullocks, the property of defendant, were being driven along the main Hutt road to the Upper Hutt saloyards. They were in charge of two experienced drovers. Some of the cattle wandered on to plaintiff’s land through a gap 111 a nigh narrow raacrooarpa fence. The* fastenings on the gate were weak, 'iho bullocks, after having done some damage to plaintiff’s crops, were driven out by the drovers as expeditiously as was possible under the circumstaaces, and becoming blocked at the gate, caused damage to the fence and gate. There was a contradiction as to the condition of the bullocks, but His Worship was 6f opinion they were not wild. The real question was whether plaintiff was guilty of negligence. He had two experienced drovers in charge of 19 bullocks, and there was no definite evidence of negligence on their part, and ho could not infer negligence from any evidence brought before him. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the owner of fenced land had an absolute claim against owners of stock which got on his land, whether from adjoining hnd or while being driven along die highway. His Worship did not think that contention was sound so far as it related to, as in this case, owners of animals —not wild or dangerous, which would make a material difference —being lawfully driven along highways without negligence. There was a duty cast on owners to fence securely to prevent cattle or other animals trespassing on their property. In the present case he did not think that- negligence had been proved, and plaintiff would bo nonsuited with costs. Mr Jackson intimated that be would appeal against the decision, aud security was fixed at £lO 10s.