LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1541, 10 September 1912, Page 10

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before his Honour Mr. Justice Chnpni.m) CLAIM FOR £2827 DAMAGES., FIRE AMONG FLAX. "BUEN OUT' NEAR WAIKANAE. Peculiarities of fires in. ewamp country wero much discussed in tho Supremo Court yesterday during tho hearing of an action claiming damages for alleged destruction of property. Mr. Justico Chapman was on tho Bench and a. .special jury was empanelled for tho hearing, Jlr. Gerald l'Mtzgerald being chosen as foreman. Tho plaintiff in tho action is Archibald Arthur Brown, farmer and flaxiniller, of Waikanao. Tho defendants are Frank lladfield and Knlph Ifadfield, farmers, of Waikanae. Arabella Hadfield (mother of tho defendants), married woman,, of Wαnganui, had originally been joined as a defendant, but action against her was discontinued.

Sir. C. I.'. Skcrretl, ICC, with him Mr. A. do B. Brandon, jun., appeared for tho ■plaintitf, while- Mr. C. B. Morison, with him Mr. E. F. Hadfield, appeared.for tho defendants.

In tho statement of claim it was set out that Archibald Arthur Brown was tho lessee and occupier of about 496 acres of. land.near Waikunae. He was also, by deed of grant, tho licensee of certain valuable, flax cutting rights and other rights affecting 343 acres of land in tho earn© vicinity. On or about September 10, 1911, it wns'alleged.that the defendants (Frank Hadfield and Ralph Hndiield) or one of. them, or their servants and workmen, negligently. lit, or caused to.be lit, a fire in, amongst, or near tho flax, situated near the northern boundary of tlio 343 acres previously referred to. Tho firo subsequently spread to tho other land. It caused great damage through tho destruction of flax, flax roots, grass, and fences on tho lands. In consequence of such damage, the plaintiff (Archibald Arthur Brown) claimed the sum of .£2827 10s.

Tti tho statement of defence it was admitted that the plaintiff (Archibald Arthur Brown) was tho lessee and occupier of tho lands mentioned, and tho licensee of the flax cutting rights referred to, but the defendants (Frank Hadfield and Ralph Hndficld) denied that tho flax-cut-ting rights wero valuable. They also.denied that they or their servants or workmen had caused or been responsiblo for tho fire of September 10, which they said, had been lit by trespassers. Further, it was denied that tho plaintiff (Archibald Arthur Brown) had suffered any damage by reason of the matters alleged in tho statement of claim, If, however, the damage complained of had been caused by any fire, which may at any time have, been lit by tho defendants (Frank ami Ralph Hadfield), then such tire was lit by leave and license of tlie plaintiff, and in accordance with the terms of the deed of grant. Moreover, if tho defendants lit any firo they declared that they did so witli all reasonable precautions against injury and without negligence, and were therefore not liable lor damages. Finally, the defendants (Frank and Ralph Hadfield) said that tho plaintiff had failed to exercise ordinary care in tho protection of his property, and was also guilty of contributory negligence, in not keeping all drains (on or bounding tiie properly) free from obstruction, as he had' contracted to do by clause three of the deed of grant. It was in consequenco of this neglect that the fire had been enabled to spread to the proncrty of the plaintiff. In the course of his opening address, Mr. Skerrett stated that the jury need not concern themselves with tho question of assessing damages. In the event of a verdict in favour-.of the plaintiff, it had been agreed Ly counsel that tho amount of damages should bo fixed by arbitration. The case is expected to extend until Thursday morning. Hearing of evidence proceeded all day yesterday, and there was still ono witness to be called in support of plaintiff's caso when the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.

FRIVOLOUS DEFENCE. THE COUBT STRIKES IT OUT. Frivolous denials formed the ground on which a defence was struck out in an action mentioned in Chambers in the Supromo Court yesterday, before tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Tho original action was that in which the executors , of T. TV. Caverhill proceeded against the Belmont Park Company to recover the sum of .£5403 11s. 10d., duo on mortgago and interest. A defenco had been filed denying certain facts as to the executors' title, and setting lip a question alleged to arise under tho Property Law Act. That is to say, that interest having been paid after tho principal became due, judgment could not be obtained for tho money. Mr. G. H. Treadwell appeared for the plaintiffs yesterday morning, and moved to strike out tho defence and enter judgment for tho plaintiffs on the ground that tho denials - were frivolous .and that tho question alleged to arise was not an answer to plaintiff's claim. There was no appearance of the defendants. , , His Honour made an order as asked, on tlic erouncl that the defence was frivolous. Costs were allowed as if the defendants had mado default in tiling a statement ot defence.