SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14711, 17 September 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

The fencing case, Percival J. Roberts v. Andrew Picken, junr., was continued at the Supreme Cotirt this afternoon, j when the plaintiff was giving evidence. J Any place whero the fence was below j3tt. Uin". was only due to undulation lof the surface. At one spot where it measured 3ft. 6in. he had the soil dug away to the full height. The fence was properly strained. There were no wineberry posts m the job, only wine-berry rails. These were m- a spot that would burn, and were only temporary, material being placed there to replace the fence after the burn. He employed men on wages to do the clearing, as he could not get contract men. Witness made a thorough job by under-scrubbing first, and the big. trees were felled wherever they would reach the fence. Only two trees wer© left, on© which the weight would carry the other way, and the second one which he considered cheaper to leave and . to repair the fence if it 'did* fall, rather than to chop it down. Had witness firod the bush on the line first he would have been m danger of burning defendant's standing bush. Apart from that, owing to the wet season it was impossible to burn. It was essential there should be a fence, as both parties were running stock. It was a recognised practice to take the best line. - , '

Uo hi s Honor: Witness put up the fence m good faith, believing it was to be on the old line; neither did witness know that it was not the true boundary, nor did the, defendant. To Sir. , Coleman : Tlie new peg m question was on the boundary between Picken and' < Bobb, and not between Picken. and?, himself. Witness took it that he was to erect tho fence as it was originally; there was nothing said of the Fencing Act. It was- to be a good and substantial fence. Picken said he wou*d .like an eight- wire fencej and witness thought that owing to tho price of wire a,- seven-wire fence would be sufficient, and it was left at that. Ho would not contradict defendant if h e said the interview was on January 19 and not m pecember. Robb, who was E resent, was away on active service, lefendant did not say witness could clear more than 1% chains if he burnt it. Defendant did not say . anything about it beihgv too Jaie for that season. He did not promise to put men on this work before . any other job. Witness wrote asking defendant for authority for the fence, as he had heard defendant had offered to sell out. Ho remembered defendant asking him if the authority was satisfactory. Witness new posts were inserted as support posts, varied from, sft lOin to 6ft 2in. The new posts were inserted as suport posts m between the did posts, which wore totara, and ;weare taken out and reversed. Mr Coleman produced for his Honor's inspection a number of photographs of the fence, showing the erection and tho nature of the country. „;

Mr Ctoleman quoted various places which ho contended' rendered the fence of an unsatisfactory nature. I suppose you have noticed that there are only five wires showing on the f once lino near, tho top of the hill ?— If that is so then It has been caused by cattje.i

There is> a danger of fire?— Where the wineberry posts are. Do you say the wires are properly strained/?— -Yes, the fence has been up 14 months and wires will get slack, especially with the severe weather experienced., with snow on them.

Edward: John .Williams, sheepfarmer, residing- m Patutahi valley, but s'also owning property at Rere, said he examined' the .f once iv question. He considered' it was a legal boundary fence, and it was a good, strong,, substantial fence, and. f_r superior to some erected round his own property. The fence lis erected m- places on broken, soft ground, and the line would have to be regulated to avoid slipping patches. The present lino of the fence was, m his estimation, on the best ground for a boundary fence. Witness had liad considerable experience. He considered there were few places . (Proceeding.)