MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10619, 14 March 1896, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fiiiday, Mahcii 13, (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.)

A. and J, M'Farlano v. Stewart M'Kenzie (Waiareka Junction).-Claim £30 19a lOi. on a dishonoured bill.—The defendant having paid £6 since the issue of the summons, judgment was given for the plaintiffs for .€l4 lls Id and costs. Thomson, BrMger, aud Co. v. A. Crainmond.— Claim £9 18a lid, on a judgment summons.— Mr Allan appeared for the plaintiffs.—There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the, amount, claimed,.'with costs, by. monthly instalments; in default, 14 days' impriaoumept. .

Alfred Howard v. Win. Leckie (North-East Valley)— Claim £100. damages.—Mr Soloman appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hanlon for defendant. —This p&vtiy-lieard case was concluded, and his Worship reserved his decision. John Sidey v. Ewen Cameron (of Middlemurch).—Claim £50 3s Id, portion of the cost of a dividing fence between certain sections of land at Nenthorn.—Mr T. K. Sidey appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Him. for the defendant. —In this previously-heard cose his Worship gave judgment as follows: —I find that statutory notice i t-i fence were duly given and agreements come to with the then adjoining occupier as to tbe description of fence to be erected, and that tbe adjoiuing occupier should pay interest at the rata'of 15 por cent, on the half cost of the fence." I "see nothing in those agreements to tako tlw case out of the Fencing Act; in faot, it contains a clause stating the agreement is intended to operate under the act. There is some dispute as to whether the standards are the proper distance apart; but there is no doubt the fence substantially complies with tbe agreement, and Mr Orbell must have bean satisfied the fence was a sufficient one, or he would not have paid interest on the half cost, as he did do. The lanjraaso of section 15, "Fencing Act 1S81," is plain : " If a fence is erected after statutory notice has been given, tbe then occupier of adjoininn land is liable to pay th« half cost; or, if he is a Crown tenant, under section (! he has the option of paying interest at the rate of 35 per cent, on the half cost, and until the half coat is paid any person who shall go into occupation of the Lund during the continuance of the dividing fence ia under a like liability." In other words, the original liability for the half coat of a fence uutil it is actually paid poas with the occupation of the land. There is nothing in the section to confiui: the liability to the occupier or immediate successor of the occupier at the time the fence was erected; nor do I see any reason why, if land becomes divided, the liability should not also be divided, each occupier beiug liable for the fence bounding the land he occupies. It does not Beem equitable that after a fence has been stauding seven or eiglit years a new occupier should havo to pay bo much as one-half of tho feuce, but the act so provides, and I can se« no way out of it. Judgment for plaintiff for £50 3s 1(1 and cd3ts of court (£2 4s). witnesses' expen^us (£1 •is), and solicitor's fees (£310s); to be pi id— one-half on March 21, 189(5, the other huH on September 14, IS9G."—Mr Sim asked that execution might be stayed for a week, pendinsc consideration as to whether defendant should appeal.—His Worship agreed to the request.

Tbe tet placß for dessert and jam fruits W, Buil's. Georae and Trincoß streets, ,':