Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A RABBIT-PROOF FENCE CASE.

At the Gore Magistrate’s Court, before Mr H- A. Young, an application was made by Donald Munro, for whom Mr Inder appeared, to have a non-rabbit-proof fence between section 8. block VII, Wendonside, and sections 1 and block IV, WendonBide, the property jot James Pollock and William Mortimer (for whom Mr Bowler appeared). converted into a rabbit-preof fence. The evidence of Munro was to the effect that rabbits from the property of Pollock and Mortimer come on to plaintiff’s property, to his loss and detriment. The area of his property was about acres, and a good deal of it was in its natural state. No one made much out of the land owing to the rabbits. The only boundary of iho property not netted was Pollock’s.

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

After hearing further evidence and addresses by counsel, the magistrate said ho 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 jf 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. Ho (the magistrate) considered that it would be reasonable and equitable for the defendants fo pay half the cost of the fence. Such a fence would be an advantage to both parties, and the improvement's would bo valued under the lease hold from the School Commissioners. Five weeks would be allowed defendants in which to erect their portion of the fence (43 chains). Judgment would be foH plaintiff accordingly, with costs amounting to £2 11s 2d.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19131029.2.59.7

Bibliographic details

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 16

Word Count
346

A RABBIT-PROOF FENCE CASE. Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 16

A RABBIT-PROOF FENCE CASE. Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert