NEIGHBOURS GO TO LAW

Taranaki Daily News, 9 May 1930, Page 3

NEIGHBOURS GO TO LAW

CLAIM FOR REPAIRS TO FENCE. NON-SUIT AGAINST PLAINTIFF. Over a matter of £3 10s for a share in the repair of a fence two neighbours in Liardet Street, Annie Chapman and E. J. L. Payne, went to Court in New Plymouth yesterday. It was held in the judgment that under the Fencing Act notice of repairs to be valid must be served only by one occupier to the other occupier. An owner who, noii occupying the house, served a fencing notice had no claim over the neighbour occupying the house adjoining. The plaintiff, Annie Chapman, was non-suit-ed by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., and ordered to pay costs £1 9s. The fence had fallen into disrepair, said Mr. L. Hughes, who appeared for plaintiff. Payne had suggested the erection of an iron fence eight feet high. This would have been far from ornamental and would have blocked the light. An agreement was finally made to repair the existing batten Notices were served on defendant in December, 1929, but no notice, or objection was received from him. The work was done but 'when defendant was asked to pay his share he refused. .

To Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who appeared for defendant, Mrs. Chapman admitted that she had been away from. New Plymouth for a large part of- the year 1929. She was not occupying the property When the notice was served. As a matter of fact defendant for some time had wanted a new fence', eaid Mr. Quilliam. However, without going into that he would move that the plaintiff be non-suited. It had not been established that Payne was the occupier, of the property and, further, when the notice was given to Payne Mrs. Chapman was not the occupier of the property and only the occupier of the property could serve the notice. He quoted the case of May v. Hale, 1926, New Zealand Law Reports. . At the time the notice was served Mrs. Chapman was away. . There was no doubt that notice had to be served from one occupier to another, said the n/igistrate. He had to administer the law as it was laid down.

The hope that the magistrate could give judgment under the equity and good conscience clause was expressed by Mr. Hughes. The magistrate said he could not go against the interpretation given by the Supreme Court of the clause in the Act.