RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1532, 15 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka— Wednesday, July 14,1886.

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.]. BOUNDARY DISPUTES. Francis Franks was charged with having on Wednesday, the 7th inst., destroyed a wire fence on the property ol (he Queen, now in tho possession of W. Demuth.

Mr Tosswill appeared for tho complainant, and Mr Raymond for defendant.

Mr Tosswill explained that the complaint was laid under section 25 of the “ Malicious Injury to Property Act.” The defendant destroyed a fence at the Temuka bridge. The land was in the occupation of complainant, and he has thus sustained some damage, W. Demuth : lam in occupation of a reserve running underneath the Temuka railway bridge. The fence was up when I took possession of it. It was three barb wires and willow stakes. I got possession from Mr Russell, Through the fence being broken down my horses went away and my sheep got out, . I lost about a day looking for t hem, I estimate that LlO would not pay me for my loss. Three chains of tho fence were destroyed. It was worth 25s or 30s. Te Mr Raymond : I am a tenant at will. I pay no rent at present. I occupy the strip at this side of the bridge. Ido not know, but I believe Franks put up the fence. He put it up prior to my taking the land. Some of the stakes are broken. Archibald Russell, railway ganger ; In accordance with instructions I gave Demuth possession of the land. When Franks was erecting the fence I told the person erecting it he had no right to do so. Franks said he had authority from the Road Board, but none from the railway authorities. He said if he asked the Government he might be refused, but it it was erected there would be nothing said about it. John Roddick, aged J 9 years, gave evidence to the effect that he saw Mr Franks taking the wire home. Did not see him take the fence down. Mr Raymond said Mr Franks gave some land to tho Road Board on condition that he would get this,piece of land. The Road Board laboring under some misapprehension thought the land belonged to them, and gave it to Franks. Subsequently Franks found it belonged to the railway authorities. Ho next cited a case heard on appeal in Welling ton, directly on all fours with the one before the Court. Francis Franks : I was running a fence along the bridge when Mr Gray and Mr Meyer spoke to me and asked mo to leave room so that there would be a road into the river. I arranged with the Road Board and got willow stakes. Wrote to the railway department and they made no objection. Found Demuth in possession and cutting me off with another fence. Felt I had a right to the fence I put up and took it.

To Mr Tosswill : I had authority from the Road Board to occupy the land,

Several letters were read between the defendant and the railway authorities, one ot which declined to give defendant any right to erect the fence. Witness : I did remove the fence. There was only one horse there and no sheep. The fence was up before I received the second letter from Govern-

ment, After counsel bad addressed the Courr, His Worship said ha had no doubt that the information was right, Franks had made the fence without any authority, and took it away without warning, leaving the land of the complainant fenceless. The plaintiff thus sustained damage. Tha defendant would have to pay £8 and costs. The case of Haar v. Bridges again came up, Mr Raymond appearing for Haar and Mr Tosswill for Mrs Bridges. The case was re-slated to His Worship by Mr Raymond. The parties to the suit were neighbors, and agreed to make a fence on a certain boundary line. After Haar had built- seven chains of the fence, Wright, who is the agent of Mrs Bridges, held that the fence was not in the proper place, and the case was brought into Court. Haar applied for (ho cost of the 7 chains of fence made by him, and half the cost of survey. His Worship said he did not see how Haar could claim for the fence. It was a pity that be and the counsel could not go up and see the place for themselves. After a good deal of a conversational sort of an argument, which appeared to be chiefly based on the question of costs, Mr Dyson, who had made a - survey of the place, was called, and submitted a sketch plan of it. He said the made fence was only from 12 to 14 inches from its right position. His Worship ridiculed the idea of coming to Court in a case like this. He told the parties to continue making the fence as they had been doing. Me

would adjourn the case for a month, to allow them to finish the fence, after which he would make an order as to costs. The Court then rose.