Compiled by Cameron McCullough
AT the Frankston Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Smith, P.M.; and Messrs. C. Gray, P. Wheeler, and J. Brown, J.’sP., Miss Irene Galt sought an order from the Court to compel J. B. Jolly to erect a six foot paling fence between their respective properties on Melbourne Road, Frankston.
Mr. Robertson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Hogan for Mr. Jolly.
Irene Galt said she was the owner and occupier of property on Melbourne Road, Frankston. Mr. Jolly occupied the property on the north side of her place.
The properties at present were divided by a fence of posts and three wires, with scraggly bits of hedge.
Two years ago she spoke to Mr. Jolly, and he agreed that a fence was necessary. She obtained an estimate as to cost of a new fence, but Jolly then said that the existing fence was adequate.
Witness considered the fence was inadequate. Anything could get through it, and she was unable to keep a garden owing to Jolly’s fowls invading her property.
Witness suggested the erection of a paling fence.
To Mr. Hogan – My complaint as to present fence was not only that it allowed poultry to get into my property, but also as to lack of privacy.
She knew that Jolly kept his poultry in wire-netted yards, but these enclosures were no good when the gates were open. I want a fence that will keep my bulldog in and other dogs out. My bulldog is not on the chain.
The P.M. – I wonder that Jolly has any poultry left. (Laughter.)
Witness, in reply to further questions by Mr. Hogan, said the depth of the sideline between the properties was about 300ft. She considered that the windows of Jolly’s house would be more than 3ft. from the boundary fence.
Witness never advised Jolly to sell some time ago, because she was going to darken the windows of his house. Witness had conducted a picture show on her property. She did not consider she was called on to say whether she was going to continue the picture show.
This closed the plaintiff’s case.
Mr. Hogan argued that under Section 8 of the Fences Act it would be sufficient for his client to show that he had provided the kind of fence usually erected in the locality. If it was shown that the fence was out of repair he was willing to replace it.
James B. Jolly said he was the owner and occupier of the property adjoining Miss Galt, in Melbourne Road, Frankston.
The present fence consisted of solid posts and four wires, and the front portion was covered by a good ti-tree hedge. The fence was paid for by the original owner of the property.
It was in good order, except that the wires had recently been cut by Mr. Robertson.
Did you see them cut?
Witness. – No; but I can produce someone who did. Witness said he valued his house and property at £2000. If a 6ft paling fence was erected as proposed it would damage his property to the extent of £300 or £400. The fence would darken the windows, which were only 2ft in from the side line.
The poultry referred to were enclosed in wire pens 6ft. high. He merely went in for poultry as a hobby, and intended get ting rid of his poultry at Easter.
To Mr. Robertson. – When Miss Galt gave me notice to fence I told her the existing fence complied with the Act.
The P.M.– Do you consider a wire fence suitable?
Witness. – I do.
Witness said he did not like the idea of being cooped up in a yard. Frankston had been referred to as a suburb, but he liked to think of it as the country, with fine open spaces.
Senior–Constable Culhane said he knew the properties in question. He inspected the fence referred to, and considered it to be in good order.
There was only one paling fence in the locality, all the others were ti-tree hedges.
To Mr. Robertson. – The hedge fence between Jolly’s and Galt’s ex tended from the frontage of the properties for a distance of 30 or 40ft down the side line. It was a nice hedge. For the remainder of the distance on the side boundaries the fence consisted of posts and four wires, with the hedge growing in places.
At this stage the Bench decided to inspect the properties. On returning to the Court, the P.M. said:
“We have seen the properties, and we discussed the matter. As usual, a difficulty arises in being sufficiently specific as to the order that might be made. The conclusion arrived at is that the ti-tree hedge is a sufficient fence. It would be a pity to remove it.
As to the other portion, we think some fence should be erected, and suggest a paling fence 5ft high.
Mr. Hogan.– My client is prepared to agree to a paling fence from the rear of his house to the back boundary.
Mr. Robertson.– But the front hedge is not fowl or dog proof.
The P.M. – Can’t we leave that to the intelligence of the parties?
Mr. Robertson. – My client wants a fence that will keep the bulldog in.
The P.M.– Perhaps Mr. Jolly would make a fence that is bulldog proof. (Laughter.)
By agreement it was decided that no order of the Court be made, and that the case be adjourned for eight weeks, the parties in the meantime to provide the fence, as suggested by the Court, both parties to pay half cost.
Mr. Robertson asked for costs.
Mr. Hogan objected. He, on behalf of his client had tried to meet the other side without coming to Court.
Mr. Robertson was not the original solicitor in the case, and knew nothing of this.
The Bench ordered that each party pay their own costs.
WHEN the Frankston Park Committee decided to lay the agricultural pipes in the oval at the Frankston Park, under the supervision of the Shire Engineer (Lieut.–Colonel Lazarus), quite a number of persons declared “that they would serve no purpose.”
How far this has proved correct or not has been demonstrated by the results of the recent heavy rains, for while most other flat and low-lying country has been practically under water, the oval of the park, with the drains running at full pressure, has been passable the whole time.
This should certainly be a sufficient test to justify the action of the committee in doing this work, and whilst much remains to be done in connection with the park improvement scheme, it is only right that an expression of appreciation should be forthcoming when it is justified.
In this case we believe that credit is due to the committee, to its officer, and also to the contractor who did the work. We, therefore, tender our need of praise to those responsible for this good work, and trust that many other improvements equally necessary will, at no distant date, be given effect to.
AFTER a prolonged absence of one year and eight months, Mr. C. G. V. Williams, of Frankston, intends sailing from England for Australia on September 12 next. He is expected to arrive about the 25th October.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams have been touring England, Scotland, and Wales, and are at present in the South of France.
MR. McCarthy, of the Bay View Hotel, went to Melbourne yesterday to place himself under the care of a specialist. It is feared that Mr. McCarthy may have to undergo an operation for appendicitis.
From the pages of the Frankston and Somerville Standard, 2 & 4 Apr 1924
