Feiding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume X, Issue 107, 16 March 1889, Page 2

Feiding R.M. Court

Thursday, March 16th, 1889.

(Before Major Tuke, E.M.)

CIVII* CABEB

Ralph Heald v, John Manson. — Claim £7. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant. This was a claim for £5 alleged damages to a trap which bad been overturned by a fallen tree on the Valley road, and £2 for special damage for removing timber out of danger and being unable, in consequence,, to follow his occupation as a builder.

Owen Pleasants, deposed: He .was a farmer residing in the Valley road; had. been acting as a kind of manager for Mr Manson, who had some bush Mien there ; had instructions to- burn it on a favorable day, after warning the neighbors ; set fire to the bush; he and several neighbors made a party of it that mornings set fire to the bush on the 25th February ; it wasa windy day r a good day for burn La g; the wind was. West and South West ; it would carry the fire in the direction of the Valley road; had been all over the place since the burn, which was a good one; saw traces of fire on the Valley road; saw ' fallen trees about ; placed tour men in the Valley road so that no possible injury to property could occur; they were engaged as neighbors doing a friendly act and not as mere laborers; knows where Mr Heald is building a house, about 1£ miles from Mr Manson's bush ; the trees on the road, were as much there by the wind as by the bush fires ; the country was all on fire.

By the 8.M. : The contractors ; for making the road had burned some of the trees. By Mr JPrior : It was the custom of ths contractors to burn as they went along ; Mr Hanson had felled some time before an average of .12. chains along the Valley road, which had been laid down in grass ; There was a post and wire .fence ;on Mr .Manson's side ; the clearing was full of logs; not a single post in the fence wasburned; the fire did not travel over the paddock at all, in fact the fires haven't travelled anywhere this year; a number of men came to his house to; make arrangements to generally assist; they all fired their own bush the same day'; three: of the neighbors fired their bush previous to Mr Manson, viz., Mr Saxon, Mr Sweet r | did not know who was the third ; thought it was on section 10 ; the owner of section. 13 also fired on that day ; the trees blown down were from section 15, towards section 52, across the road ; plaintiff is building on the Harbor Board Block ; the wind would blow the smoke from Saxon and Sweets towards Heald; section 15 is owned by Mr Bush, whose bush was. burned on the same day ; knows Mr Armstrong's section No. 14 w&s burned the same day; Mr Manson's is on the lowside and Mr Bush's on the high side and! it was impossible for the trees to fall anywhere else than on the road; last winter there was a great number. blown down on the road; went along the. road on the 27th to see if any of Mr Manson's fence was burned; saw the trees, which. were; all old dry trees, on the road; one was a green tree which had been cut with an. axe ; there was a top of an old tawa'on: the road; some of them were alight ; there was a rata tree with paoking alongside of it, which showed the mark of wheels which had been driven over it ; went as far as Mr Manson's land ran up the road ; there were 7 or 8 trees; with ordinary care a man in his right senses need not run against a tree lying in the road. Cross examined by Mr Sandilands : The , metal had just been finished on the road when the fire took place; the rata was a small tree about a foot through ; the trees were burned from Bosh's fire ; there is a strip of grass between Mr' Manson's bush, and the Valley road of from 10 to 20 chains wide ; thought it was possible one fire would burn all the bush, therefore they all (8 or 10) arranged to burn on the same day. Adolph Goldfinch, deposed: He was at farmer on the Valley road; knows Mr Manson's property, also where Mr Heald. was working ; remembered the day of the bush fires, it was windy ; Mr Pleasaots; authorised witness to set fixe to the bush near his house ; Mr Heald called on him to help to get his trap up ; saw the trap lying upside down and smashed about a good deal; a rata tree had caused the damage ; it was lying across the road* ; it was burning ; the fire that did it was Mr Manson's; it was impossible for any other fire to have done it ; there was no firealong that road other than Mr Manson's ; Manson's fire blew right past witness' house in the direction of the place of the accident. By the 8.M. : This fire was lit by witness at the request of Mr Pleasants. Examination continued : It was possible to get past the tree on the. metal road ; they could not get up the centre of the metal ; one wheel might be on it.

Cross-examined: With care a person could have got by ; it watt about 10 a.m~ when plaintift came for him to assist after the accident ; it appeared to witness thai more than on trap had gone over ; when: the trap was turned up plaintiff went on his way; both saw the damage to the trap ; the splash board was smashed off, and the lamp was smashed to the best of his belief ; witness section wa» No. 12, off the Valley road ; the corner of it touchesthe Valley road ; the plan does not giveit exactly correct ; Mr Allerby set fire to bis busn after defendant; on that day there were fires all round; the treeß across the road came from Mr Bush's. land, which was burned that day — but it was evidently burned by defendant's fire ; in order to prevent any danger to witness and Allerby 's houses Mr Pleasants authorised them to light the fires ; it made no difference as it happened. B. Heald, deposed : He was a builder ; he had a contract in the Harbor Board Block ; was working there on the 25th ; there was a fire; fires were so bad they had to knock off work ; defendant's bush, nearly. a mile long was burning; had to shift 400 or 500 feet of timber to save it ; one man assisted; when he went up in the morning in his trap he thought he could pass the tree as others had passed ; a branch caught the wheel and turned over the trap ; the lamp was smashed, splash board smashed off, one of the covering boards of the wheel was broken ; the iron work of the repairs cost 8s 6d ; did the woodwork himself; the trap had depreciated in value £51 led the mare over for safety ; saw other traps had gone over.

Cross-examined: The trap ib in his place ; the lamps smashed cost 24s 6d per pair ; had the trap 1 year and 9 months ; did not get a wheelwright to do the work because he could do the work himself; was quite sure he saw wheel marks in front of him; it was quite possible for the tire to blow up the road past Goldfinches and then cross ; the road is not straight ; , only the fire at defendant's caused theconflagration; had a good idea of the cost - of making the body of a trap and estimating the damage done lo one ; the trap .had been carefully looked after. ' By the Bench : Ojbher traps had gone '. by without accident; if he had left thfc. mare he would probabably have had Vf' worse accident ; if he had gone back for an axe he would have to go \ of a mile j had, no notice the bush was to be btu*ne'd ; j was bound to time by his contract i':Wi~~ Healclj nephew'of the plaintiff was^woifcß

ing at the -contract ; assisted to prevent the fire destroying the sawn timber; shifted 500 feet of timber 1 chain behind logs and fences ; the timber did not catch alight. By the Bench : The houses in course of erection were in danger from the fire. Mr Prior, for the defence, askid for a non-suit on a point of law. Plaintiff had attempted to pass the obstacle on the road at his own risk, his had been contributary negligence. Mr Sandilands having replied. The Bench said it was a trumpery case in itself, but it was of great importance to settlers as to their liability therefore he would reserve his decision. The case for the defence was then gone on with. Owen Pleasants repeated his former evidence. Owen Pleasanjs, son of the previous witness, gave corroberative evidence. Eobert Parr, coachbuilder, Feilding, deposed : He had inspected the trap ; the dash and wing irons were broken and one lamp ; some of the standards sprung a few screws out af a plate underneath the shaft ; estimated the costs at about Jl2 10s. This was the case for the defence. Mr Prior addressed the Court. At the request of the R.M. Mr Reid gave evidence that 5s was good pay for shifting 500 feet of timber a distance of 1 chain. Mr Sandilands having replied. His worship said there was no evidence the fire was lighted by defendant. Verdict for defendant on that point. The value for removing the timber was excessive. He also gave a verdict for defendant on that point, costs to be paid by each party. W. Jones v. Hepi Te "Wheora.— Claim £10 13s. This was a claim for certain building work. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Plaintiff stated his case. Mr Hector Booth, native interpreter, translated the evidence. The defence was that 10s a week was to be deducted for rationsHepate Wheora gave evidence for the defenceJudgment for plaintiff for £9 3s, with costs 475. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. W. Heald v. Ruera te Waku.— Claim .£l7 7s. Ordered to be paid in. 14 days or 12days in "Wanganui gaol. Costs allowed 18s.