CLAIM UPHELD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 94, 3 July 1946, Page 5

CLAIM UPHELD

VERBAL GRAZING AGREEMENT WIN FOR MAORI PLAINTIFF Court last Tuesday, Te Keepa Tawhio (Mr G. Otley) claimed from George L. Washer (Mr B. S. Barry) the sum of £9 15s, alleged by plaintiff to be the amount owing for grazing which he had let to defendant from the dates November 5, 1943, to March 4, 1944. Mr E. L. Walton, 'S.M., was on the Bench. Opening. his remarks, Mr Otley rotated that plaintiff was a native farmer at Piripai. In November 1943, he had agreed to defendant grazing stock on his property, at a fee of 15/- per week. One payment covering a month’s grazing had been made. Defendant had continued to . graze his stock till March 1944, but had made no further payments. The result was that the sum of £9 15s was owing. The Native Department was interested in plaintiff’s land, and a representative of .the Department had seen defendant and requested payment. This had not been forthcoming, and proceedings had been instituted. Plaintiff’s Evidence In evidence, plaintiff stated that •defendant had paid for his grazing for the first few weeks, and then he (plaintiff) had entered the hospital. 1 The Native Department was assisting him with the land. To Mr Barry, witness said that he was the sole owner of the property, although the Maori Land Board had , lent him money occasionally. He did not give the Board permission to collect grazing fees.' Defendant had the property next to his, and by the arrangement, it was agreed that the dividing fence should be let down to allow stock to use the whole area. -At that time, there were four horses of his own running on the property • and the arrangement was that he ■(plaintiff) should be permitted to use the water on defendant’s property, whilst defendant utilised the grass available on plaintiff’s land, and also paid the sum of 15/- per week. He was not aware that any ■other stock had been allowed to run ■on the place. He had erected the ■dividing fence on his return from hospital. Land Board Evidence v Representing the Maori Land Charles Reginald West stated that in November ;1943, plaintiff had advised that he' had made an jpisangemenU whh defendant for grazing. He (witness) had arranged with plaintiff to have the remainder of the money after the first £3, paid to the Department and credited to plaintiff’s account. Witness had then contacted defendant who had agreed to the proposal. No further payments had been made. In April 1944 a debit note for £9 15s had been forwarded to defendant, but this had brought no result. He had later seen defendant personally. Ultimately, a final notice had been sent from the Rotorua Office. Witness had visited the property in question several times but had noticed no other stock be- . sides defendant’s, and plaintiff’s horses.

To Mr Barry, witness admitted that although he was authorised to collect the money, he had no written authority. On the termination of the contract, he had asked defendant to remove his stock. This had been done. The terminating of the grazing rights had been done verbally. Mr Barry then submitted that on plaintiff’s own admission, the department had no authority to collect the money. Moreover money for a .definite period had been claimed, when there was actually nothing to support such a defined period. Straying Stock Defendant, in evidence, stated that the arrangement had been as plaintiff suggested, He had made one payment of £3. He had then received word from the Department to say that further money was to be paid there. He did not think it was a written communication. The next time he had visited the property, he h§d found a number of extra cattle there. He had re-erected the fence; he had, in fact, re-erected it three each time it had been let - He had told 'plaintiff’s son that the arrangement was concluded. He had not told the preceding witness that the money would be paid. He had never acknowledged

the debt at all. He had, he contended, paid for all the grazing he had received. He had only continued to use the land because the fence had not been left standing. To Mr Otley, defendant admitted that he had been seen by witness, and had mentioned the fact of additional stock being present, to him. Summing up, the Magistrate stated that it appeared that defendant did not get all to which he was entitled, as there was no one present most of the time, to watch for straying stock. Defendant, however, he thought, was overclaiming, and plaintiff was entitled to something. The amount for payment, he would fix at £6.