CUTTING THE HEDGES.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 26 June 1924, Page 9

CUTTING THE HEDGES.

I ACTION AGAINST FARMER. | Cunsuierable tuiio vua.> occupied' ut I the .Magistrate's Court yesteruay moriij mg m me Hearing or a cam Omore Alt I .Mosiev m which C atiierj me Maria btoc-Ker, oi Unnstcnurcu, and l 1 rani: hteput-a Stocker, ot (imam, executors in tne estate ot .Lhomas I Bryant Head Stocker, deceased, claimed" from Arthur Jl redericK .Mocker, \V usiidyke, the sum of £93. The claim was made up as followsßoss of rent owing to defendant's failure to give up possession of property field on lease, at the date due, £LS 18s; damage caused to house through defendant liuling to keep the liou.se iu good order, £5; and estimated cost of repairing fences, caused by neglect to Keep hedges trimmed and iu good condition, £/0. Mr J. W. White appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr W. D. Campbell for | defendant. George M. Lewis, 'plumber, stated tlmt lie bad inspected the house now occupied by Mr J. Galiany. The drainage was in bad order, and owing j to the leaks in the spouting, the timj ber on the south side of the building was iu a state of disrepair. He esti I mated the repairs would Cost abput £9 JOs. Wiliam McCulloch, , farmer, residing at Seadown, stated that the farm was in a very neglected state. Gorse was growing wild, about 90 chains of fencing being in a very bad state. Ho considered that it would cost 5s petchain to clear. Gorse was also prevalent along the creek, and in tho 1 orchard. He estimated it would cost £5 fo do the necessary clearing at the creek. As a result of tho state of the | hedges, wires would have to be put I through to make them cattle proof. : To Mr Campbell: Unless it was I promised that the land would be put in good order he would not pay 38s an acre rent for it. James Gulf any, a farmer residing at Washdyke, stated that he leased the property on May Ist, 1923.. The land was in a bad state, when he took possession on May 24th. Ho should have received possession before, but defendant had a tenant in the house, and stock on the property. For this reason he refused to pay. rent for the 21 days. The fences wore iu bad order, and couch and yarrow were also -prevalent. His estimate for the total fencing required was £7l 6s 6d. The gorse would not have grown a great deal since May Ist. The season had > been so dry that little growth had ' taken place. j To Mr. Campbell: He had bought the ! place at auction on about May 4th. He could not have taken possession on May Ist. He had examined the place, ! before he lmd purchased the property. J To Mr AVliito : The principal reason for taking the place was ,6n .account 4 of its proximity to a School. : Hugh Brosnahan, farmer, at Sea- j down, gave corroborative evidence, re- ; garclmg the condition of 'tne property. ! Mr Cahipbell stated that the'defendant had leased tho property loi twenty-one years. All tho improvements on the property had been done by .himself. . Knowing wimt tne pro- * perty could do he did nob; remove the stock '.before the sale,.anticipatitig J that lie would buy the place in. The price, however, went higher than lie = was prepared to give for it. He placed no ODStacle in the way ot Mr Oairany obtaining possession.- He was not compelled by the tease to cut the tences, Out he did so regularly every year. The trustees, througn their solicitors, instructed Mr Munro, a capable man, to inspect tne place to see that the conditions of the lease had been complied with. Mr Munro reported favourably on its condition. Alfred F. Stocker, the defendant, stated that the property was situat- j ed about a mile from \Vushdykc and lie had been oil tho place since 1898. ' When the place was put up for atie- I tiou, he anticipated being the pur- i chaser. He gave immediate possession ! of the land with the exception of one f paddock for; the use of his own stock. He thought that Mr Gaffany had cattle on the place before the 24tli. The fences were iu fairly good order, when he left, and lmd all been cut

every, year. There ..had been a big - llood on the property on May of the previous year, which, although a dry year, would have the elfect of making gorse grow. He was informed by the trustees that they were perfectly satis tied with Mr Munro’s report. The lirst lie heard of the case was a low months ago, some eighteen months after lie had given up possession. R. Campbell, who stated that he was a tenant of defendant's, gave evi- i deuce of leaving the property on May 24th, 1922. - ,3 |

Thomas F. Burrell, labourer residing. at \Vashdyko, slifted that lie had worked on defendant's property. In June and July of 1922, lie cut all the fences on the flat. The fences on the lulls were cut by another man. T. M. Munro, estate agent, Tinmru, stated that lie had been actively engaged on the land for over 18 years, hie had inspected Stocker’s farm, and considered the fences compared favourably with any farm in the district, i and were in a good state of repair. Thomas Connelly, farnior. Pleasant Point, said that he was with the previous witness on the day lie visited the farm. The fences all appeared to’bo m good order. The .Magistrate said that the case appeared to him lie perfectly clear. Mr Munro had visited the place, under tlie instructions of Messrs White and O'Brien, who were plaintiff's solicitors, and his report being accepted as favourable, by the trustees, entirely disposed of any claim they could make ; regarding the state of the fences. In smv case be considered that to firing a ease of that description, against a man, fourteen months later, was altogether unfair. The evidence given by plaintiff’s witnesses was given on an inspection made only a week or two ago, and in view of that fact, lie was prepared to accept the evidence given by the witnesses Connelly and Munro, whose inspection had been' iiiade at 1 tiro termination of tlie lease. For the I claim of £7O in respect to the fences judgment would be given for defendant. Plaintiff’s claim for £5 in regard to the rendition of the bouse appeared reasonable, and judgment for that amount would be given in his favour. The claim for rent had not been sorioc.sly disputed by defendant, and ; judgment for plaintiff would be for £2O • lbs. together with Court costs £2. anil J solicitor’s fees £2 12s. Witnesses’ ex- j ponses could not be allowed, as they i bad not given any evidence relative to ; the case. Witnesses’ expenses would bo-; allowed for defendant on tlie first , claim in the sum of £2 2s, together •with court costs, 9s.