Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 108, 10 March 1892, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, March 9. (Before Mr H. W. Brabant, 8.M.) J. B. Pybus v. Alex. Bergensen ; claim £4 3s lid. Mr Bichmond for plaintiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs 6s. F. S. Bassett v. D. E. Amesbury ; claim 11s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment by default, with costs 20s; solicitor's fee, £1 Is. James Huddlestone v. F. J. Chell ; claim £6 ss. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment by default and for the amount claimed, with costs 17s; solicitor's fee, 21s. F. S. Bassett v. Norman Charlton ; claim £13 19s 7d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs 38s; solicitor's fee, 21s. F. S. Bassett v. W. J. and W. Crichton; claim £2 4s 4d. Mr Prior for plaintift. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs 13s. F. S. Bassett v. Wm. Crichton ; claim £9 6s 7d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment by default, with costs 17s ; solicitor's fee, 21s. Peter Thomson y. Charles Guthrie ; claim £& 9s 4d. Mr Sandilands for pontiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, less £1 paid {£1 9s 4d), with costs 10s ; solicitor's fee, 21s. E. Holland V. Thomas Gordon ; claim JES 89 7d. .Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed within two months, or in default 5 days in Wanganui gaol. J. B. Pjbns y. H. Ross ; claim £i As 2d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Ordered to be paid within 7 days, or in default 5 days in Wanganui gaol. A. and J. B. Pringle v. B. Douglas; claim £5 4s lOd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 17s; solicitor's fee, 21s. G. C. Hill, Town Clerk, v. Thos. Jones ; claim 16s Bd, rates due. Mr Prior for the Borough of Feilding. Judgment for the amount claimed, and 6s costs. John R. Graham v. Edward Cnrreen ; claim £100. Mr Richmond for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a claim in compensation for alleged damage caused by a bush fire. Plaintiff deposed to being a- farmer at Cheltenham ; about the end of June last year defendant asked for the work of cutting down some bush ; made arrangements verbally ; at that time told defendant all firing of trees would he strictly prohibited on account of some bush near by, which had been felled the previous year ; defendant then accepted the work and said he would like to begin at once ; permission was given : the specifications were signed three days after ; (specifications put in) ; at this time defendant admitted having fired a rata, his reason being that the fire would do no harm; after signing the specifications defendant repeatedly asked leave to fire the ratas, but was refused permission on each occasion ; about midday on the 13th October defendant, accompanied by his mates, came to plaintiffs house and said the bush was on fire : it started in the bush then being felled ; it burned fiercely from the 13th October to the 16th ; told defendant to go and finish his contract and they would consider the matter; would willingly give £200 to have the bush in condition to burn. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands : Defendant commenced work on a verbal understanding ; no person heard the conyerBation except his son ; after the fire took place had Bown a mixture of grass and turnip seed, the total cost of which was £53 7s 2d, which was virtually thrown away. F. Duckworth deposed : Had been fencing on Mr Graham's property ; saw a fire but did not know who lit it ; defendant informed him that the fires were lit by him with Mr Graham's consent. Cross-examined by Mr Richmond : Was prepared to swear that the fire did not originate from any fire lit by witness and Stewart. George Stewart corroberated the evidence previously given. Cross-examined : Had taken contracts where ratas had to be felled ; reckoned that a contract where everything was to be felled was worth 30s to 355 ; fires lit by them were all out before the fence was erected ; on two or three occasions had left before extinguishing the fire ; it would be possible for sparks to be carried long distances by the wind ; fire would travel better through bush where a mill had been at work. David Graham, son of the plaintiff, substantiated the evidence of his farther. Cross-examined: Was present when defendant asked for the contract; he agreed to do the work for 26s 6d per acre, but his father gave him 27s per acre in order to make a good job of it ; Birch, the carpenter, was not within hearing when the contract was made ; could detect smoke issuing from the standing bush after the contract was let. W. Mills deposed to having gone over the section and considered the burn was a very bad one ; it would take the value of the land to clear it of the logs ; had a similar experience himself some time ago, and it cost £2 per acre to have it cleared. Arthur Johnston deposed to believing the fire had run through from 80 to 90 acres. Mr Sandilands said he would endeavour to show that the agreement permitted defendant to burn the ratas. He would call evidence to prove that Mr Birch and defendant's mate were present when the verbal agreement was made. Edward Curreen deposed that Mr Graham asked him what he could fall the bush for ; after inspection with his mate they Baid they would fall it for 26/6 and leave the ratas ; but would do it at that price if allowed to burn the ratas, to which Graham agreed ; while this conversation was going on Mr Birch and his son were present ; about a week after Arork commenced ; he and his mates met Mr Graham wao said he did not approve ■of the way m which the ratas were being turned and he would like in future to lave the trees choppod round; saw numerous fires on the fence line and thought it probable the fire in question was ignited by sparks carried from these ; Mr Graham and he were on very good terms until they had some difference about the stumps; Mr Graham refused to pay the balance of the money due until they had felled the ratas ; £2 per acre would have been a fair price to fell everything ; the bush burned in October -was the best burn in the whole lot. Hugh Malone and James Malone also gaye evidence. The case was adjourned until next court day, 13th Apnl ; on the application of the defendant's counsel. H. S. Flyger y. Amos and John V. Burr ; claim, £51, amount of a promissory note dishonored. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Cooke, of Baker and Cooke, for the defendant. For the defence it was contended that the bill was not due until Di*»mber, 1892. \Wilfred Scale deposed to being a ledger kee x per m the Bank of Australasia ; had recei yed instructions to produce the pronnsS'Ory note now presented. Henry Thomas Flyger deposed this promissory note was given in part satisfaction o£ an action pending in the District Court ; could not say who filled in the body of the bill, but was able to swear to the signature of the defendants ; had not seen any of the Burrs before taking this action. Mr Cooke contended that plaintiff should be nonsuited because they were not the holders of the bill ; according to an agreement produced, they were not entitled to sue until December, 1892. Mr Prior pointed out irregulartities m the document produced. He did not mean to B»J &»$ (tow irregularities were

intentional, but he contended the date on the promissory note was the correct one, In summing up His Worship said thu was a peculiar case, and from tho evidence before him, he could not give judgment for plaintiff ; it appeared the bant were the owners of the bill, therefore plaintiff had no right to sue for recovery. Plaintiff was nonsuited without costs. The Court then adjourned.