A FENCING DISPUTE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 116, 8 July 1911, Page 3

A FENCING DISPUTE.

NEIGHBOURS DISAGREE. A start was made at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday moniiiifiv.it;! the case Mary Elizabeth Burgess (Mr Spence) v. Henry Stephen Priestly (Mr. Malone). The claim was for £7, the value, of a piece of fencing alleged to have been removed, the parties owning adjoining sections in Regan Street. John • Reuben Hooper, labourer.

gave evidenea that in December last, at the request of Miss Burgess, he wane down to her.house. in .East Bead for flic purpose of putting in, a con pitof posts in comicctioiii with a fence there. It'was, a elose-boprded fence, and there yecinec] to be two panel?; missing. The rest of .the fence ,v.:. c/ in good order. Witness yaw Priestly anJ said hq had been sent to mend the lone?. i; ,Priestly .said he. did. not want a lance there,, as .there was a, nice hedge. The n, issiiig panels were each ton to twelve feet long. j\o work was done in December. Witness went; to the place again about April •ot!* with tiie timber lor repairs, and hiiestly locked th.e gate, saying ho would not lot the fence he repaired, arid that he would have the rest down soon. Witness said: “You’ll get the consequences yet, mate.” For .some roasun the police were called to the place, and witness left the place. i ! o Mr. Malone: The piece of fence icit was a good solid fence, and was good enough to last for twenty years, lie did not dene .that some of the posts might he rotted through. Xo post would • last ; more than seven years in .• (Taranaki—posts rotted through veryiqipcklyi The fence was not, when -Jhensaiy it, made of pieces of packing eases-—it'uvaS Composed of sound heart; of irimu. X; !' John Hae Mackay,* surveyor) produced a plan.'showing the two properties.. The board fence between the properties was ’on • the east side—Miss Burgess’-—of the boundary. The fence was half a link (about three inches) over the boundary.

Charles John McKenzie, Public Works Engineer, ' Stratford,‘‘said lie bad occupied Miss Burgess’s premises for the past two years. In October last there was a close-boarded fence between the properties. The fence was in fair order. At the street end, the fence leant over a bit, but this could have been remedied by putting in a post, and did not interfere with defendant. In October one of the panels of the fence was sawn off. He complained to Miss Burgess when he found the panel gone, because, he desired to have a close fence. The hedge near the fence was not good enough for a fence. A further panel had been .removed from the fence, and to date forty-six .feet of the fence had '(men removed put of total length of sixty-nine feet. To replace ■ the .fence would take somewhere no to £5. .

By Mix Malone; A few of the posts were rotted through, near the ground. The fence might ho eight years old, but not more. .On the original fence witness saw no pieces of packing cases, and there was none on the fence remaining.

~At tin's point, the hearing was adourned.