Magistrate's Court

Southland Times, Issue 15056, 27 September 1901, Page 3

Magistrate's Court

Thursday, !2(jtu Sept. {Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) kkscim; dispttk. W. S. Waterston v. Mrs Janet Jamieson was a claim for £71 Is 3d, estimated cost of repairing fences on section 35, block 1, Invercargill Hundred.— Mr W. Y. H. Hall for plaintiff; Mr J. Macalister for defendant. Mr Hall said there was only a question of fact in this case ; whether or not the defendant had performed her duty ho far as repairs were concerned on a property she held under lease from the plaintiff. The defendant occupied the farm to the end of the lease, which expired in June last. When the lease was first entered into the fences were all put into thorough repair, and the agreement entered into irade express provision for the fences being kept in repair. The evidence for the plaintiff' would show that the fences were left in a very had state. The defendant, or her husband, erected subdividing fences, and before she left she pulled them down, and patched up the boundary fences. The plaintiff now claimed the amount mentioned, which was the amount estimated to put the fences in proper repair. The defence, as outlined by Mr Macalister, was that when the place was taken the fences were put up good enough for the purpose that they were intended for. It was a fence with posts eight feet apart ami four wires on the northern side, and on the other three sides similar to the fences that were there now. The fences were damaged by fire and replaced by equally good ones. The fences were kept in as good repair as could bo expected for the purposes for which they were wanted. About six or seven months before the end of the term the plaintiff gave notice to repair the fences, and this was done as well as possible. Some delay took place because the plaintiff told defendant that there was no hurry. She sent up her son and another man, and they carriea out the repairs. The fences were intended for a dairy farm, and were not supposed to be sheep or fowl proof. A month before the end of the term the plaintiff had 40 cattle there and some of them broke through the fences. The removal of the sub-dividing fences was perfectly correct, and they were removed from time to time as circumstances required. The previous tenant also carried away the sub-dividing fences. The defendant had had Messrs Coupland, Crombie and Warnoek to examine t.he fences, and these three men of great fanning experience would say that the fences were in a good statf. Certainly damage had been done to the fences since the defendant left, and the plaintiffhimself injured the southern boundary fence by negligently digging a ditch along it. liethought the evidence would show that the defendant had dono all that was required of her and that the plaintiff therefore had no claim . A nuniber of witnesses were called for each sid« and the case was adjourned till the following day. .NO DKI'ENCES. Judgments were given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases :— Fleming and Oilkison (Mr Watson) v. William Knipe (Avenal) for £'2 13s 3d, coats 12m ; same v. Wm. McKenzie (Harrington.-) for I."} IMs 9d, costs £1 '2s ; Borough of Invomirgill v. James Harrington (In vercargill) for £2 .Ss 9(1, costs ss: W. Todd and (Jo v. Lung Sue for £2 ss, costs 5s ; Wesney Bnm. v. 1). Mathesou (Waikaia) for £2 10s, costs ."«; Undaunted Ci.M. Co v. \V. C Fatilds (Centre Hush) for £G 10s, costs £1 'Js 6d ; Kinir Edward (i.M. Co (Mr W. Y. H. Hall) v. Jack Bros (Winton), for £5, costs £1 Os(jd. The advent of .Spring. — A matter of great interest to ladies is Thomson and Beattiu's special displays at the beginning of each season. Their show of spring novelties is fixed for the three last days of this week.