TRIMMING A HEDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17492, 28 August 1928, Page 8

TRIMMING A HEDGE.

NEIGHBOUR'S PROPERTY. CLAIM FOR £277. NURSEBY LOSES SHELTER. An Interesting case involving a claim for £277 damages was commenced in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr S. L. Patterson, S.M. The claim arose from the cutting of a Lawsonian hedge utilised as shelter by John Bateson and Son, nurserymen, Hamilton East. John Riggir. residing on the next section, cut the hedge against Messrs Bateson's wish. Prior to the hearing of evidence. His Worship, accompanied by counsel for the parties concerned, and two Horticultural experts, visited the property and inspected the hedge in dispute.

Defendant was represented by Mr .1. L. Conlan, while Mr E. V. Stace appeared for plaintiff. Mr Stace, in opening, explained that the hedge had been planted some eight years ago, and had acquired a height of between eight and nine feel. This hedge was necessary to shelter the property on which fruit stocks were planted. Defendant, after cutting a portion of the hedge, was warned of its value and notified that any further destruction would be done at his own responsibility. This notice was ignored, however, and the wholesale cutting of the hedge had been continued. Plaintiff's Evidence. John Bateson, in evidence, told the Bench that he had carried on business as a nurseryman in Hamilton since 1911. On May 26 he noticed that his hedge had been cut, and immediately interviewed Mr Riggir, who was rather abusive to him, and told him that he would cut the whole fence down. Later he saw defendant cutling the hedge again. The hedge prior to this was fully nine feet high, and would now have to be drastically trimmed to save it.from splitting. He considered that nine inches would have to be cut off, leaving the trees no more than four feet high on an average.. It would be Ave years before the hedge would return to its former state. He considered that it would be unwise to risk the planting of fruit slocks on the land in view of the inadequate shelter. He would now have to plant on stale land which would entail, in the long run, the loss of fully a third of the young trees. The value of the fruit stocks at the end of two years would be estimated to have been fully £6OO. Cross-examined by Mr Conlan, witness stated that the hedge was not high enough to necessitate trimming. The land would not be left idle, but it would not be used for the purpose intended. He did not agree that the hedge was giving practically as much shelter as previously. Asked if he did not think that the loss of four feet of shelter was greatly exaggerated, witness said he did not think so, and considered £250 a fair estimate of the damage. Expert's Opinion. Alfred William Green, late of the Department of Agriculture, with considerable experience in horticulture, explained that it was necessary for a nurseryman to plan out his campaign of planting well ahead and use his ground in rotation for planting. In his opinion four and a-half to Ave feet had been ruthlessly cut off the hedge, and he considered that the stumps of the trees would have to be cut down to solid wood.

In explaining fruit-stock growing Mr Green pointed out that in the event of a strong wind the work of two years might be ruined wore the plants to be sown on the properly. The balance of the tree -was also spoiled by the wind and so lessened in market value. The amount claimed was quite fair in his opinion.

A. Green, nurseryman, of Ellcrslie, said that on the average about nine inches more would have to be cut off the hedge trees for trimming. An average of about Ave feet had already been cut off. The hedge would be useful after four years, but it would never be the same as it had been. Only about four feet would be left after the trimming, and the southerly wind would be ruinous to the stocks after budding. It would not be advisable to plant a portion of the section in fruit stocks, as it was easier to work a larger area. On this fresh land the stocks would have made very much better growth than on land previously used as a tree nursery. The loss through planting on stale land might be as much as 50 per cent., or £3OO. For the Defence. Mr Conlan, for the defence, remarked that his client, who was 84 years of age, had misread the provisions of the Fencing Act relating to the right of cutting ptanLs on a neighbouring property. He had thought he was within his rights in topping the hedge, which he considered was getting too high and making his property dark and damp. He now realised that he had done.wrong and wished lo express regret. Riggir had not intended to mutilate the trees. The only question 'was the amount of the damages. David C. Mitchell, landscape gardener with 35 years' experience and foreman for the Hamilton Beautifying Society, said he considered the hedge had averaged Jess than eight feet, and only about four inches would need to be trimmed off. He would not lie deterred from planting fruit stocks on sirch land owing to the loss of 3ft or 3ft 6in of hedge. It would be better -to do so than to use stale land. A buddcr who obtained 90 per cent, of successes was "pretty lucky." He considered the loss from lack of shelter if the trees were planted as originally intended would be very small. In two seasons Ihe hedge should be as high as it had Been uerore the cutting, though the centre growth would never be the same. Cross-examined, witness said he had never been a nurseryman, lie had not seen Mr Bateson's hedge before the cutting, but had taken measurements since. (Proceeding.)