KAIAPOI.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5801, 14 December 1886, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

j Monday, Dec. 13. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M.) Dahacies. — James Kico v. P. Welch, claim £9 15s. damages claimed for trespass of 12 head of cattle on Oct. IG, 22, and 23. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff; Mr M. Nalder for defendant. Mr Stringer opened the case, and called plaintiff and Messrs F. Baker, Minier, Robb, Wiustanly, A. Baker, and Hay Smith, who all considered that the fence was a fairly good one, and that defendant was in fault in allowing the ditch on his side to be filled up. Mr Nalder opened for the defence, and called defendant and Messrs Bocesto,

Forrest, J. Jeffrey, G. Heston and W. D. Humphreys, who, for the nioat part, denied that the fence was originally a ditch and bank, as is usually understood. Sods had been taken from defendant's land to make the bank, but no ditch had been excavated, aa at the time the land was a raupo swamp. Before plaintiff had cut the hedge it was cattle-proof, and defendant's cattle breaking: through was the result of such action. Both counsel addressed the Bench at considerable length, Mr Nalder contending that plaintiff's common law right had been taken away both by the Impounding Act and by his own negligence and cited in support of hia argument K. V. Hutchinson c* parte Jessel, Victorian Law Eeports. Mr Stringer replied that the Impounding Act did not interfere with plaintiff's right, and that the damages had been fully proved, quoting " Addison on Torts." His Worship gave judgment for defendant, with costs of six witnesses and solicitor's fee, on the grounds that plaintiff's own action had contributed to the loss sustained by him. — In a cross-action, Welch v. Eice, Mr M. Nalder appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stringer for defendant, in which half cost of repairs to fence was claimed. Judgment was given for plaintiff, subject to the work being properly carried out. la this case, costs were divided.