SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14712, 18 September 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

'^ . — — — j ■*In the fencing case, Percival J. Roberts v. Andrew Picken, junr., which was proceeding at the Supremo Court this afternoon witnesses for the plaintiff were recalled by Mr. Burnard to obtain rebuttal evidence, dealing with the substantial condition of the fence. Mr. Colemaii, m his address, submitted he was entitled to succeed on the following grounds : (1) The fencei was not erected ; (2) the chain of land along- ! side the fence was not cleared or felled as stipulated m the* agreement; (3) the contract had not been carried out because thare was a chance of trees falling on and burning the fence. The evidence amply disclosed that the fence was not a new or substantial one, and was erected of old material to a large extent. ■"" -^-- :••- .-■ . *;•■ His Honor,: gaid that if the defendant knew- the' fence .was being .erected on the wrong line he should have acquainted plaintiff of ,thY fact. | Mr Coleman : Defendant had only sus- ; picions m that drection. j His Honor said a person should leave no ambiguity m any arrangement as' otherwise ha could not turn round and refuse cost because the other party had no confined ' instructions m the matter. His Honor added further that if defendant had his suspicions he should have consulted his contract m order to make the matter more, distinct. Plaintiff was allowed to use his own discretion m the matter. He had been exceedingly impressed by the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, as ito the nature of the ; fence. . { (Proceeding.)