MUCH ADO

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 83, 3 July 1928, Page 3

MUCH ADO

ABOUT VERY LITTLE, KGAEEE FEM3NG DISPUTE. AGREEMENT NOT PROVED. At the Stratford Court yesterday, before Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., hearing was continued of the case N. B. Fryday (Mr Croker) v. H. E. Nowell (Mr Thomson), a motion wider the Fencing Act. At a previous hearing the evidence for plaintiff had been taken. Giving evidence yesterday .Horace E. Nowell, defendant, said he had occupied his present farm sjince 1913. At that time there was a fence running the whole of the distance on the boundary between witness' and Fryday's land. It was

a post and wire fence, with about five wires, the wire being rusty. In the gullies there were willows growing in the fence, but othrewise there was no line fence. The total length of the fence was 53 chains. in a letter to witness, Frydays counsel said that there had been an agreement with witness' predecessor that each party should erect and maintain'half of this boundary fence, but when witness took over the place nothing was said about this. There was now a live hedge along the line. When Fryday sold his cows and stocked up with sheep it was decided to Plant tliis live had&fi. «Each party started from one end of the end. When certain repairs were required witness agreed to pay for wire and staples and Fryday paid for the labour required. Two men split timber on witness land and this was used on the south end of the fence. On another occasion Fryday got totara posts from witness, stating that they were required for the south end. On a third occasion witness gave Fryday further posts .for the' purpose of repairing the south end. There bad never been any agreement between witness and Fryday as to each undertaking to keep half of the fence in repair. Fryday spoke often about the fence, but always in the direction of stating what previous owners had done .and what witness should do. ■*... ; -, &

NO. AGREEMENT. Witness would not make an agreement 'as Fryday requested, having soma knowledge of the Fencing Act. The live fsiice was planted during the war years. It was weeded for the whole distance on witness' side by an employee of witness. Witness had never told this person that she had done wrong to wood the south end. On the south end there were four gaps which a ileast could come through until witness put batons ox] the wires. '' Photographs of the fence were put ! n at this point. Continuing, witness said a guard fence was erected along pari of the V. on witness' property. This wrs before legal proceedings began. There was a guard fence on Fryday's property also. At this part, therefore, there welre three wire fences find a barberry, hedge, so that a-weasel '.could hardly get through, Before witness' guard fence was put up Fryday complained that witness' boasts had been eating trees planted on Fryday's sid e of the fence. These trees were in such a position that the damage could not be done by witness' cows and must have been done by Fryday's own cows. Witness was

noted for the grass feed on his place. Fryday's place was always eaten much closer. Witness had 281 acres of land, on which he ran 102 cattle and SO sheep. At the present moment he had oceans of grass feed. To Mr Croker: Teh girl Groshinski, who weeded along the fence, was now in Wellington, but she had been at witness place on holiday when the case was before the Court first.

THE WEEDING. He did not propose to call her to contradict Frydays' assertion that witness told her not to weed ascertain portion, because it was Fryday's portion. He did not intend to call the Collins brothers to give evidence that they split posts on witness' property. He could not now identify the men who split the posts. Mr Croker produced a certificate from the Collins brothers, indicating that they had never cut posts, as alleged. He also produced a certificate from Mr B. Orr, stating that he had seen the girl Groshinski weeding along the fence line. Witness contended that Orr could not have seen the girl. Counsel produced a certificate by a certain party and asked witness whether this party was an honest man. • -

Witness said lie was not. Mr Croker: Wouldn't, you believe his statements made on oath. Witness: I couldn't believe a word he said. •Counsel did not pursue the matter further. Continuing, witness said that when the live fence was put in, witness planted the north end and Pry day the south end. When witness supplied wire and staples, that "was for repairs on< th e north, end. The guard fence was erected to protect the live fence, where it ran between the »iS"t paddocks of witness and Fry day. To the Court: There were isolated plants of barberry on witness' land, and these could be put in the gaps, making the fence a good one. The S.M. said it should be possible to make some agreement. The amount involved was not worth all the trouble. SOMETHING ELSE.

Witness said there was more in the matter than the fencing dispute. The S.M. said it seemed a pity that such a small dispute should bo the cause cf litigation and the attendant cost. Mr Thomson said there had been several conferences between counsel. Mr Croker said he was anxious to settle the matter. The Court was adjourned for half an hour to see if an agreement could be reached. Mr Tate said it would be more satisfactory if the parties reached an agreement. Failing that the Court would have to make a decision, and that decision might pot be agreeable to the parties. On the Court resuming, Mr Thomson announced that no agreement had been come to. Harold - Marchant, farmer, Cardiff, gave evidence that he had examined the fence four times since November. When he saw it in November be could not see that much was required to be done to the fence to make it a good one. In what were referred to as gaps there were live plants. The only real gap was at the gateway, where .about six yards was bare, a space being lune on each side of the actual gateway. Barberry was slow in growth in the first and second years, but alter that, when the roots wen growth was good. It was a rare thing to see .guard fences in Taranaki. That morning wituosrf agaiu inspected the hedge, and found that it had grown considerably since November.

FOUR MILES OF HEDGE. Walter Wickham, farmer, Bird Road, said there were four miles of barberry hedge on his fiil ' in - Guard fences had not been used on any of this'hedge, and he preferred to grow the hedge without a guard fence. The, gaps wei 'e the difficulty, and if it was his place he would strengthen the wire at the gaps to see that cattle did not try to get through. For £1 he would undertake to do what was necessary to made the i-.-i.ee a good one, but that would not keep Lulls out.' The S.M. (to witness): It seems to me that we have had two sittings on this case for very little reason. Witness: I think that is the fact. Summing up, Mr Tate said that after hearing the evidence he could not find that the existence of an agreement as alleged by Fryday had been proved. No order would be made as to repairs. That left the matter open under the Fencing Act, which provided for repairs being done by one party at the cost of the other. Each party would pay its own costs. Mr Thomson: Will you hear argument on the question of costs. Mr Tate: No. I have heard too much now regarding a trouble which the last two witnesses have convinced me does not exist.