574 Journal of Agriculture. [9 Sept.. 190; 



5. To brinj; the minimum standards of the various kinds of fencing 

 allowable up to date. 



To take these in detail. The second proposition, if derided one way 

 disposes of the first. If the bull be taken bv the horns and it be decided, 

 no matter what agreements mav affect lands as easements, such agreements 

 and easements shall be abolished, and that adjoining owners for the time 

 being must erect and repair dividing fences in equal shares, the main diffi- 

 cultv now and in the future will be got o\er. In mv judgment it would 

 be best to take the bull by the horns. If not. then the first i)roposition 

 must be faced. How is a man to know what easements affect ? There is 

 onlv one way and that is bv having same noted on the title in the same way 

 as a mortgage ; and if it be not there, then nO' easement. To work this 

 out would involve some such process as this: — 



First, an owner desiring to have his fencing business placed on a 

 business footing, would serve notice on his adjoining owners, specifying 

 his idea of anv existing allocation of fencing lengths and easements; or, 

 if there he no such allocation, then specifying a proposed allocation. 

 Then, if the adjoining owners do not within a limited time reply objecting, 

 the first man or the objectors — when ser\ed with notice — may take out a 

 summons before a magistrate to have the point decided. The magistrate 

 would make an order, and this order would become a record of the ar- 

 rangement and would be filed in the Titles Office and be noted against the 

 affected titles. On the titles would be marked the portion of the 

 boundaries allotted to each. A time should he allowed for the Act to be 

 brought into operation — sav 12 months or two years. In all cases not 

 taken in hand during that period the Act would declare that no easements 

 shall be taken or be allowed to exist binding on subsequent owners without 

 express notice of them. Having regard to the large amount of trouble 

 that would be entailed by this process, and to the fact that, for all practical 

 purpases in the great majority of cases, adjoining owners have accepted the 

 position that each adjoining owner for the time being is bound to fence 

 or contribute to the cost of fencing half the actual lines separating them, 

 irrespective of the fact that before a new adjoining owner bought, the whole 

 of the boundary of what he bought formed the half of an original fence 

 that the former adjoining owner ased to- repair, I do not think that the 

 game would be worth the candle. I do not know if I make this clear. 

 Take the two sections already referred to. A had the west half of the 

 fence; B the east half. When B sold the west half of his selection to C, 

 C became A's adjoining owner along the Avhole of the west half of the 

 fence that A used to repair. Invariably in mv experience C assumed that 

 he had to fence half of the line between him and A, though as a matter of 

 fact C's land had an easement over A's which would entitle C to compel A 

 to keep the whole of the boundary fenced. 



Assuming, then, that the Law would be that adjoining owners for the 

 time being must fence and repair, and that agreements cease when a man 

 sells his land, and that the Act will rule ir every case between the originil 

 adjoining oAvner and the new owner, subject to an\- agreement they ma\' 

 then make to continue during their seAcral ownerships, the position is 

 reduced to a simple one, viz., to frame legislation to place the fencing 

 relations of adjoining owners on a simple and easih' worked footing. The 

 shortest way to explain how this can be done would be to draft an Act for 

 the purpose. To do so before you get the support of the Minister for a 

 scheme of amendment would be work thrown awav, apart from the fact 

 that there is a proper official whose dutv it is to attend to such matters. 

 The Convention Papers will be ccntini-.cd in tlie October number. 



