The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1897. FENCING NATIVE LANDS.

Opunake Times, Volume VII, Issue 309, 24 August 1897, Page 2

The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1897. FENCING NATIVE LANDS.

The question of assisting Mr McKeown in his case against the Public Trustee has not been taken up very warmly by the lessees, as far as giving him any monetary assistance goes. Human nature is the same now as it was when ASsop wrote his fable of the fox who got his tail cut off, and who then tried to induce his fellow vfoxes to follow suit. Unless Mr McKeown had made up his mind that he was goiug to see the matter through on his own account, being prepared to stand,all the costs should he lose and to take all the credit should he win, he was foolish to begin without first consulting his fellow lessees and getting a guarantee from them to indemnify him in the matter. There seems to us to be a certain misapprehension in the minds of some of the lessees, at any rate. They appear to be under the impression that Mr McKeown’s case is a test case on the whole question of fencing, but as far as we understand the case this is not so. In 1895 a new Fencing Act was passed, and it is under this that the lessees in future will have to act. Mr McKeown’s case, on the other hand, is under the 1881 Fencing Act, and therefore we take it that even if he wins his case it will not define what is the status of the lessees at the present time, as the Act under which Mr McKeown is suing is no longer in existence. Further, the question of cost of erecting a new fence is not raised in Mr McKeown’s case, and that is sne of the chief complaints of the lessees. What we should advise the lessees to do if they feel inclined to move in the matter, is to get all the lessees who are affected by adjoining unoccupied native lands, to subscribe to a fund and obtain counsel’s opinion: Firstly, as to whether the Public Trustee is the occupier within the meauing of the Act, aud if, notwithstanding the covenant “ Will fence ” in the lease, he is bound to contribute to the cost of erecting a new fence ; secondly, is he bound to contribute towards repairs under the Fencing Act 1895 ; and thirdly, take an opinion on Mr McKeown’s claim. If the opinion is favorable, then take one of the cases where due notice has been served under the new Act aud make a test case of it. It seems to us that if the question of paying half cost of erection is settled in favor of the lessees, then the question of repairs follows. The Public Trustee is apparently desirous of having it settled, and on broad grounds, as he waived all technicalities of procedure in Mr McKeown’s case in order to have the point of his liability settled.