SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14712, 18 September 1918, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

When tho Court resumed this morning, Abbotsford Smith gave ■ evidence. He said he was a. shee})fanner, of 20 years! residence m Rakauj;^ ; l^je had, \iail a varied experience m fencing which, dated back to 1874. ■ He had erected about 61 miles under the contract, system. He liad : erected on his own behalf from 15 to 20 miles on hilly country. Witness' property was similar to Roberts' and Picken's. He iiisi>ected the fence m question, and said it was tto biggest . "bungling" he had ever investigated. The first few chains of the fence from the r top are put up m good fencing. A deviation was then made apparently to get clear; -of .a slip. After that the fence, was zig-zag until it met the angle at. the boggy- part. ■". m iiia opinion, alter passing the slip, the fence could easily have been brought back t«i the jnoper boundary lino, Avithput\iiny furtiior deviaticn. Had the prppH" line: been followed tlve fence would unquestionably have been better. The sUmcture itself had not, efficient strainers or anchor posts to make a pei'manent fence. Two gaps- oi' half and three-quarters of a chain respectively were left m the fence at the creelis. The manner of terminating tho fence at the. gaps was the most evxtraordinary he had ever witnessed on a boundary fence. Ordinary posts had been put m tho ground and wired back to pnngn roots, and the "fence had been fastened at 'the gaps to wineberry roots; The material used m the fence was inl'erioi*. the f posts simply being inverted end up, with the result that: if the fire passed, the fence would kindle.. The battens were rimu .with ;a tendency to rot. To make a good job .tlife- 'battens should have been jnadefiom new* rimu wood.. Had' the wires been ta.ut\, the fence would have fallen , as it was not supported, by ; permanent angle posts.- Witness noticed the bush had been felled.. In. case of fire ;in, the bush the, danger was great,- and^ but for the wire atid perhaps a few posts there would be no fence left if the burn was a good, one. With a prismatic compass 'he found the otlher peg by using t!he one original, peg on the' top of the liillV He discovered someone else had beenusing tlus method and putting pegs along- the line. When .h.e Jgot to the bott/om he found) the pcg J? Tn a notice 1 able ■ place. When surveyors placed pegs they placed them :on Lhe . exact boundary. A few chains from . the bottom there had been an old slip, which had since cionsolidhtedi, ; and waa q^uite fit to have a, fence ' erected across it. He cQuld not say tlie fence was stockproof, as the standard of efficiency would bo so much lowered.

-' Mr Burnard : Would ' you say the feaie-e 1 was". -three, feet away from the original Uine? — I measured' several places at two feet.

' At ihow many points did you make the observation that the fence was off the line? — About two-tliirds- along the 'fence* , .. *■

, ; Your objedt was to find faulty with the fence, and) you found fault?— l'll admit that probably. You would not attach any importance to a deviation of a couple of feet? — No, especially if there was a reason for it. •: ■ •■ . ■-' '. - : - •■

If- you had l a fence erected,- and it wag placed about 2ft off the line;,, you would not told that as, a reason for non-payment?: — Not if there Avas a : reason for it. , , In v your eyes tihat would not be an objection, tihe faot of being a couple of -. feet off?— No. • :

How many zig-zags were there? — Hardly three posts were m a lino; I (juest'eon whether yoiu* witnesses looked at it from the top of the hill.

Yon say the' ■ tme line would be bjstter? — Yes, after deviating at the first fjlip.* ..-.-;■•-

: You say there' are nb' strainers: or single" posts?— Yes. ■< Are, they not strong enough so long as i/hey take the strain of the .wire? — Theoretically so, but not -practically *'-

In the coili'se of a cross-examination witness said .that th© plaintiiff had appa.i''3ntly adopted a practice that was used m his locality. Witness, however, m his experience, considered it absurd to use vineberrv. •"..•.-■

His Honor, interrupting further questions, remarked that the witness was not to judge, w'liafc , disci'etion Roberts was to i ejcei'cis&T-that was, for himself. 1 1 appeared:; to him ..to :be ,a v easel >m \vihic'h. if there was to be any deviation,.'the: agent should' consult his-'pfin-. opal. '■ The . evidence of plaintiff went to Rh.ow v that m the event of fife the ieniporai'y section of th© fence 'wouldbe economical. .But --defendant went fi>rilier. and. said it was not stock -proof i" r

; Witness ,saM "he considered the method ->f nutting a trade for a fence line Was. a. mistake. The .temporary section was r.ot strained up, and could not be effective. . • ■

William Paltridge; of the Lands and Survey Department, Gisborne, .produced plan of Grown survey showing, boundaries of the two properties. ■ ■ ; ■ • ' r Richard Grace', farmer > Rakauroa,. deposed to ;inspectingV.the fence on two occasions, and • gave- particulatsY as •to the lowhess of th«- fence m ; parts,- shortness of posts, -absence of strainersjVand to tho fence being out >Of line at a derlain point. Ordinary posts were 'used as strainers, and' were not sufficiently tied down. Witness suggested that' it would, have been advisable for the:plaintiff and defendant' to have .first -inspects ed the fence line together. ,>.''- John Roddick, licensed; surveyor m th© Lands. and Survey Department, said he made- the survey m 1909, when Mr Hntchinson's lease fell -m. ■ When- the ballot was taken the..' information was given' that -the fence- was off the line. When Hutc'hinspn's': lease fell m witness learned the fence swas off the line. .'•: '

Richard • Beaufoy, sheepfarmer,Rakanroa, stated that he considered, after _an inspecton of the whole - fence; that' it ivas an unsatisfactory f once, 'and was not cattleproof, .< ' The posts could be shaken. , ■ " 1 .-•,.' t

Dar-Cy Cbkeford, . station .'-, irimmge-r; liajcauroa, considered tihe fencte.-was. ■'■& very'- -poor one. • It w«e -badly strained; and the .bottom wiire-AvaS 'fully 14 inches from the • ground. > ■■■<■' ' . '.;'<■■::. Harry' 'R. : .chardson ,• f«ncer v sa<id h& fia,d Uien -in ttiis occupation tfbiir 10 f ee-rs: 'On inspecting the job he would term it "a very bad, jobi" ' He considered' -it was by no iheans'a substantial- fence 'between t\yo neighboa's. . ,'■ ■ 'R«-calledv plaintiff stated that after paeamg a krg© rimu stump about a. chaiin below the slip, the new fence followed the old survey line.

(Proceeding.)