FIRE THAT SPREAD

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 148, 18 March 1939, Page 8

FIRE THAT SPREAD

Damage To Water Board Property FARMER FINED £5 On February 14, a lire lit on a property in Karapoti spread to the area controlled by the Wellington City and Suburban Water Supply Board, 15 acres being damaged. Before Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday, Phillip Poulson, farmer, Akatarawa, pleaded guilty to lighting a fire in the Hutt fire district without a permit

The city solicitor, Mr. John O’Shea, with him Mr. J. R. Marshall, appeared for complainant, the Forestry Officer (Mr. A. N. Perham), and defendant was represented by Mr. H. F. Bollard. Mr. Perham had been rung up on the telephone at 6 p.m. on February 14 and told that a fire on Poulson’s property had spread into the water board area, said Mr. O’Shea. The top of the hillside was on fire and the outbreak finally burnt itself out about 2 or 3 o’clock the next morning. The damage covered about 15 acres. Defendant, who finally admitted lighting the fire, said he had been burning-off on his father’s farm and had taken the opportunity of burning scrub. However, he could have done that earlier in the season. “These things are becoming very serious,” said Mr. O’Shea, “and, with the dry summer, they are a menace which must be put down. The maximum penalty is £50.” Poulson was part-owner of the property, said Mr. Bollard, he and his brother having been farming for about 10 years an area of 380 acres. The hills in that country were all scrubcovered. On defendant’s back-boun-dary were three paddocks, totalling 70 acres and for about 20 chains the property adjoined the water board area. “Defendant says this area has never been cleared by the water board and the scrub encroaches on the farm,” said Mr. Bollard. “If he is not to be allowed to burn his back paddocks he might as well walk off that part of the property. In the last 10 years there have been burns on the back area on four occasions. Permits were obtained, but, on the last occasion, Mr. Perham arrived at the farm and said he had come to cancel the permit. He was then told that a fire had already been started. It became apparent to defendant that he could not expect a permit on the present occasion and he had no option but to burn off the scrub and take a risk.” The water board had taken no steps to make fire-breaks. The fire had encroached for about 15 yards on the board’s property and all that had been burned had. been some scrub and a little second growth, but no actual bush. “My friend has prejudiced his client’s case very seriously by his remarks,” said Mr. O’Shea. “The fern and second growth is kept there to enable the bush to renew itself—as a natural protection when it is starting. As far as fire-breaks are concerned, the water- board isn’t lighting any fires. Mr. Bollard has suggested that his client cannot get a permit. The reason the permit was cancelled was because Poulson waited too long, and the area became too dry. He could get a permit if he did the burning earlier.” The magistrate ''imposed a fine of £5 with costs 10/-.