FARMERS IN COURT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 124, 20 May 1932, Page 5

FARMERS IN COURT

DISPUTE OVER FENCES CLAIM FOR DAMAGES At the Waipukurau Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. J. Millar, S.M., Edwin Sims, farmer, Takapau, claimed to recover £4 8 19s from Charles Bird, farmer, of Wallingford. The statement of claim alleged that on July 11, 1928, the plaintiff let to the defendant three sections of land at Wallingford at the annual rental of £4 16s. Such tenancy subsisted till January 31, 1932. At the time of letting, the sections were divided from each other by substantial post and wire fences. The sections adjoined certain lands of the defendant from which they were fenced off by a substantial post and wire boundary fence. During the tenancy the defendant wrongfully removed the whole of the dividing fences together with a portion of the boundary fence. The approximate length of fencing removed was: — Dividing fences (5i chains and 4J chains), 10 chains; boundary fence, 6 3 chains. The defendant further removed from the land certain fencing material belonging to the plaintiff, being one totara strainer and ten totara fencing posts. Wherefore the plaintiff claimed: The sum of £2O, being the estimated cost of replacing ten chains of dividing fences at £2 per chain; the sum of £6 5s being the cost of replacing one half 63 chains of boundary fence at £2 per chain; the sum of £2 10s for one totara strainer and ten totara posts; the sum of £l5 for general damages. A further claim for £5 4s, being rent from December 31, 1930, to January 31, 1932, was admitted by the defendant.

Edward Sims, plaintiff, said that he was the owner of certain freehold lands at Wallingford, which in July, 1 928, he leased to the defendant at an annual rental of £4 16s. The defendant continued to occupy the property till the end of January of this year. At the time he let the property it was ring-fenced and there were two sub-dividing fences. Toward the end of the tenancy he visited the property and found that 63 chains of the main boundary fence and ten chains of sub-divisional fences had been removed. He spoke to the defendant about the matter. The latter said: “I don’t want a boundary fence; if you want one you can put it up yourself.” Defendant owned the adjoining property. Witness also wrote to the defendant about certain posts which had disappeared. In reply he received ; letter from defendant’s solicitor. He obtained estimates of the cost of replacing the fences and the posts. On these estimates, he based his statement of claim. The fences were in a satisfactory state when the property was let. Cross-examined, witness said that he had been using the property for 20 years. The sub-divisional fences had been renewed at various times. He had at no time granted permission for defendant to remove the boundary fence. W. H. Nairn, service car driver, said that he knew the proper!

question. About twelve years ago he had constructed a sub-divisional fence of totara posts and wire on the property. When plaintiff was in charge of the property, witness noticed that the road fences were well kept. Lately he had noticed that the boundary fence had been removed.

Cross-examined, witness said that he was about 16 years old when he erected the fence. He could not say what the condition of the subdivisional fences was when the plaintiff was in occupation.

W. J. Hawkes, Woodville, said that he saw the property the day before the defendant took it over. The boundary fence was in a good state of repair, as were the two sub-

divisional fences. Totara posts were used in all the fences. In December of last year witness again visited the property with the plaintiff. There was practically nothing left of the boundary fence and the sub-divisional fences were also missing. There

were indications that the fences had been removed. With the exception of three or four cases the postholes were clear, indicating that the

posts were not decayed. Cross-examined, witness said that he had noticed bluegum sapling posts lying on the ground by the subdivisional fences. He was a son-in-law of the plaintiff. The defence was that the fences had been allowed to get into such a

state of disrepair that there were substantially no sub-divisional fences at all. Plaintiff had given the defendant permission to remove the portion of the boundary fence. Charles Bird, the defendant, said that he had not removed any subdivisional fence. He had removed a portion of the boundary fence, the day before plaintiff left. tie had plaintiff’s permission to do this. The boundary fence was broken down and was net stock proof. For 20 years there had been no fence whei*e the. 4-J chain fence was alleged to have stood. He had had occasion to complain to plaintiff about the state of his fences. He denied, that Nairn had erected a fence and. that the property had ever been subdivided. Stoddart, said that, before defendant took over the property, the fences were in very bad repair. , Cross-examined, he said that his observation had been made from the road. V. Olsen said that he had known the property for about 16 years. He corroborated the previous witness’s evidence in regard to the condition of the fences. T. Geenty also gave corroborative evidence regarding the condition of the fences. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £22, plus costs £4 3s.