INFLUENZA IN LONDON.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14712, 18 September 1918, Page 8

INFLUENZA IN LONDON.

The head of n, large oftie© m London has ordered 1 from New JJeailand. supplies of "Fluenzol," which lms made such a ftvid© reputation as a elevef reducing, specific, apart from its great value as a cleansing throat gargle and: nasal irritant. Insist on "Fluonzol." Is 6d and 2s 6d.*

have to replace the entire fence. Practically all the falling was unnecessary if the fence had been erected on the old, survey line- Up only saw five trees over 2ft ~6in m dktmeter -which had boon felled; There' was • a oata tree on hiw side, but it Was now on plaintiff's side of the fence; it. was burned j nut at the bottom, and was likely toj fall on the fence at any time. If this did occur fully a. chain of -fencing would require attention. Witness measured the distance between th& wires m the presence of Mr Abbotsford Smith. To Mr Burnard : Witness replied Lo plaintiff over tlw telephone that it was a good job that he did not go on with the work, its he would not bo. able to get- a burn. So there was an agreement made? — Yea. . Was any reference made that theline of the fence should be altered from the existing- line at. the conference m January? — I'es, he said he wanted to re-erect the fence on the boundary line. Did yon have any idea at the tame, of the* meeting m January that the fence was off the boundary lino? — 1 had an idea, but -did not, say anything-. Did you discuss anything about the boundary line?— No. Do you insinuate plaintiff shifted the pegs? — 1 say the pegs were shifted. If plaintiff goes into the box and swears he never did that, will you dispute it?— Yes, someone ha« shitted it. Will you call him a liar? — 1, will.question it. When did yon next sco the peg?— August 22nd. * . His Honor: Is it there now?— -There are two there i]Off, I looked round for the-, original peg with Mr W. H. Williams, and could not find it*.. The same post was the boundary between Williams' and witness' properties. Mr Burnavd : Did; not plaintiff aay the fence needed re-erection ?-- Yes, he said the- fence was done. Did he then say anything a'jout altering the line? — No. l r ou say you expected him to put tho fence up on the true '■■boundary I — Yes.' . ' ■.■::.-■._ You wa.itoed ithti! the fenc-fr wte finished? — I thought' there - would have been plenty of time after the burn. You set a trap for him ? — Put it that way if you like. \Yasrft it your duty to tell plaintiff about tho boundary befdi'e the fence was built? — That's his business — he took on the job of putting up the fence. Although you Enclosed with the letter the authority, you base" the claim on that letter. Do* you think that is fair? —Yes. ■■• ". ■ . ". " Well, we understand each other? — I suppose so. '• '■ ■' • In every case you 'referred ..'-to t u e boundary line? — Yes. - You have told us that" ,fn the, first conversation you did not menVioh about the- boundary line alLhoug.u you h#d suspicions?— Yes, that ia so. Well," plaintiff had at his peril to find the boundary line? — Ye-. If he -didn't erect 'the fen-e on . the boundary Line did you intend " to pay him? — Yos ? if it was n&- near as possible to it. ■ • ■' : ', V ..-.•'■' Was it iii your mind not to pay him — at the ■ teloplion« conversation — if the fence was not on 'the. exact boundaiy line? — I. don't know about that e*{actly. [ iii tended to pay him so 'long as" the fence was near enough to tie correct line. . • You do not mention m tho jigreemcnt that he was to burn first? — 'l'hat was m tho verbal agreement. When you met him m town you didnot intimate to him that he sh6Uld have been careful to trace the con feet bbimlary line othi&rwise you, would not pay. for 'it?— No. * ' '. , ' You were willing to pay t l i6 amount of the^contract if plaintiff was walling to alter tho fence at a further cost of £35?— Yes. ' " ; : ' \."; ; His Honor: Have' you hu,d. experi-. ence m fencing?— Yes. * '.." Mr Burnard: Have you taken part m contracts? — Xo, but I have erected' and repaired fences. ,l 4 Where'?— -.On my father's ' place, my. OArn place, and neighbors', 'f.Jaces. . Did you have contract fencing carried out on your property ?— Yes, I sa.y if you want all the family history, Mr. Buniard', you are going to mtilke •- long case of it." ■'" '"■■;- How do vow know the f eiftvje \vas iuiiy Sffc oufc from the old fence?— By .the old post-holes. On how many points on. that. 35 chain of fencing did you actually make measurement? — One. I am not exaggerating it. ■ You are using this as a basis for defence? — Yes. • i Isn't it ifco your convenience to- exag-, gerate?-^-Oh, no. „ You say the fence is not a proper one? Yes. .'. . ■ - '• •..■,•: This arrangement was not the ordinary contract? — No. It did f' not cost you as much as a} contract would?— l ought to have had a better fence for the money. Mr. Williams said his fence was built at £3 per chain,* whilst yours only cost £1 10s? — I i>aid enough ~for_that fence to be a good one. Mr. Williams is .a good farmer of repute m the district?— As far as I know. You ought to know? — I only know the man casually. .■..-• He is a man of high standing?— High financial standing. . ■■ " - : Ho owns two properties and lias managed others? — Yes. Do you know anything against him?—. No. ' " ■ '■ '■ ■"■•"' . ; : > In April you wrote to' -plaintiff cancel.'ing consent to shift the -fence to the old boundary lin6 and T^rjrting 5 him not to touch thtx* fende. as it "was on your property?—T did that ,Ito. Hung the matter to a head. y'* ' : " You claim the fence in— Yep. 1 ■' And the wire?— Yes. " t OriginaUv it was 3ialf-owned by you? —I knew it wouldf bt ntlne whenrTit was on my side of the boundary Knd. lintetid^ to hold the fence, until he comes to his senses; not to my- terms, because' he does not know' them'. ■ ,

Nobody seems to?-^-Idont' know" about that.- ■ .■•fMr-v „-, •, •';

Before tlje fenctf^Wßs' "finished you could see they were" 'poifiji off the line? — T w.ts looking fronfthe top' of the Kill. Were they nearly ' finished ?— About rt week to go, althpuglfthev took a montli, 1 That a reflection on the fencers' ability?—! suppose so. '.'•:'• You were nble to see «h(v hadn't burnt the bush?— Yes. "'.'■'■ ' '

You -didn't ring him up m January to romirtd him that although he was halfway through with the fence he had not : carried out the burhihg?— No.' The sheap you sa l^ getting- through; the fence were strangers ? — Yes. His Honor: You' were ridinpr alom? the track and the sheep dived through by fe<ar? — Yes: before the fence -was rermired I saw plaintifF's sheeip on August 27 getting through a fence:"