CLAIM FOR TRESPASS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4007, 13 August 1915, Page 2

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS.

KAITi NEIGHBORS AT VARIANCE PLAINTIFF NOX-SLUTED. The case of J. K. Stott (Mr Bitrnard) v. Thomas Harris (Mr Dunlop), a claim for 15s, the value of a gato removed by defendant, and £2 for damages alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s cattle trespassing on plaintiff’s property, occupied the attention of Mr R. S. Florance, S'.M.. for some time yesterday. The sum of 7s txl had been paid into Court defendant as value of the. gate removed. John Kaby Stott, milk vendor, said that he was the owner of two separate paddocks at Kaiti. The defendant had removed a 10ft gate from one of witness' paddocks. lie valued this gate at 15s. One of witness’ paddocks abutted on the road. Defendant owned a number of cattle, which no grazed on the road. These cattle got into witness’ paddock, and defendant made i no attempt to take them out again. Witness saw defenant tying down the wires of the fence between his paddock and witness’ on more than one occasion with the-object of allowing, defendant’s cattle to get on to witness’ land. By Mr Dunlop: Witness changed the fence between his place and defendant's without giving the latter fencing notice. Mr Dunlop produced a surveyor's plan showing that the fence between the parties was two inches on plaintiff’s side of the boundary line. His Worship: How does that affect the case? This is not a fencing claim. Mr Dunlop: It started as one, but on having a survey made we found the fence did belong to plaintiff. Proceeding under cross-examination plaintiff said, that the fence through which defendant’s cattle kept constantly pushing was a legal 7-wire fence. His claim for trespass was a general claim for continual trespass. To Mr Burnard: Defendant had tied down the wires of the legal fence between witness’ section and his own. James Perston, laborer, said lie knew the gate in question, and considered its present value would be from I3s to 15s. Witness had seen defendant’s cattle on the roads. Plaintiff, re-called by Air Dunlop, said that at the time he saw defendant tying down the wires he took it that he had permission from the owner of the section to lie down the wires. To Air Barnard : It was the 7-wire fence which defendant tied down, and it was through this gap that the trespass took place. Mr Dunlop, for the defence, pointed out that the parties were neighbors. Defendant took it that the fence was.a boundary one, and when plaintiff started to shift the fen' e the defendant removed tne gate, considering that ho had as much righ to it as the plaintiff. They had paid 7s Gd into Court for the value of the gate. With regard to the trespass, these unfeneed sections were practically no man’s land. At the time-that defendant tied. down, the wires the section was unoccupied, and as soon as the plaintiff fenced the section defendant put up the wires again. Thomas Harris, the defendant, admitted having taken the gate, which lie was willing to return if the moneys paid into Court were refunded. With regard to the claim for trespass, witness said that lie tied down the wires, tlio quar tor-acre section jvas not fenced, and plaintiff, so far as he knew, had no interest in Mho'sect ion. As soon a;. Mr Whitfield fenced the section, witness let the wires up again and since then no animals of Ids had been on the section. Three or four ot the settlors grazed their stock, on the spare sections and roads in the locality. . By Air Burnard: None of Ins stock had trespassed on the quarter-acre section after it had been fenced. His Worship said lie thought that 15s would be a reasonable value to allow for the gate. With regard to the trespass, he did not see how there could bo a legal trespass when the sections wore not properly fenced. Judgment would be for 7s Gd in addition to the amount paid into Court, each party to pay their own costs.