CLAIM FOR SCRUBCUTTING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1903, 12 October 1906, Page 4

CLAIM FOR SCRUBCUTTING.

Hcfoio Mr Burton, S.M , yos crd*>y tho earn cf B.ffio-t- Sb'iithor, I! rir.y IS. Hue* row-', <io:i !•’. JJ.iriow, and N. O. liar uwi -i|» ist ,Jo 1 1• > l*'n"t—r. nl im (, r eon,!)cnttir g nt Wi Burn Uni r, i’oututu, wee hr !i’ cl.

Mi F. W. Nolan appeared for pi i tiffs iv’,il Me Alston Oulnnuo for defendant. Tho plaintiff-’ 1-o*lll wiiii stir o 1 by tho dot whins*, Robert Bbouthor, who - ail ;hn parties intor il into ngrciuimt with lofi tsdunt t * cot uv.nnUo on two paddocks mi tin) above estate, Tho wo It w-is li linliod in B (tombtr, and when dm o was

sure ovi d for Mr F s'erby Co oncl \\ ntr-r, who judged t’> mamik-i cut ami eh arid i-.l IHI norci- Tht-i ostimfite win* <• (t--c----wurds ino'.'nrHoil to 185 acres; TIGG 10s Inid been paid nod ace pl l d nil flooon tof this wiibout pnjodioo to any futil.or claim of plait tiff i. Too litter w're diiß't - fied Hnd onlled in another Furvryor to m mur□ tho manuka out, giving him instructions to bo careful n t to unesuio any open spaces Tho plaintiff i’ stitvoyot of vised tli it ‘2(H) noros 21 poiohoa was the a mount uf manuka cot, not 185 neon, and it was for tho diffroneo hot ween those two aineun'a ttiey who claiming Too contract piieo for cutting tho eornb w*" 18t

pit ace. H. Ooiildiog, Hconsid surveyor, give ovi lonao tiiat ho had snrvoyf d tho manuka out, eo'ing under m-tioct'onH from p ain* t llti, nod ho put in pirns cf h'fl survey, lie had oircieil out tho wo>k of purvey with his own ebivnnion, With tho f xc’ption of in-n or two places tho manuka was very thick. In tho placos where it won Hcut'.crod it oanitd about GO bushes to tho fcjuu e chain. George G-nrit, licensed surveyor, gave evidence to tho ill ot that ho had oh-cisod Mr Gonldirg’s plans and figures and found tin m C"rrrot, He h 1 d given Mr G o viMing instil,offers to nuke cartful survey to measure tho hush, oh men always ihongbt ill' ro bush was cut than there really was. The cTferco put forwaid was that both parties neoepted Co'onel Winter as tho lurveyor; that the weight of avid, nco was against tho plaintiffs, and that tbo piain-t-ffs were Btcppcd on account of iheir oonduct,

Colonel Winter, lioonsed survoyor, gave ovidenoo th t ho had m asuced tbo scrub cut and male plan of same. At the in* stance of ono rf tho plaintiffs ho uia o an fibona-oa ci fivo norra, fir some cf tho uianuka he (aitnes.-) dd net ihir k was worth measuring. Mr Foster hid instructed him that l-o wished ibo mm fully pa’d for all they had done Ho thought with r> f renco to scattorid mauuke, tho f iirrst way c f moasurir.g was cay, in tbo o,so oi five--.ere paddock, to ortimate on what amount of gtound tbo manuka a o lid bo grow ing. and if it was d. cidi d t' allow two Rorcs thrso i c-rs woull be du« duct'd from tho live. Tho witness thought M: Gould ng’s surviy inoludod a let of ground on which there was no thick manuka at nl 1 , ar.d ho (tho w'.tn’ff-) did not c nsid-.r Mr Gjulding’s ctlimate was in accordar o i with tiie agrtc-ixn n‘, between tho partin'. He (0 donel Wilts) iiad n'mply cst-m&’cd tho Foattercd potions of manuka and surveyed tho thicker bid's. Ido hid made a cornet surrey cf solid ina-iulta, in! h-id made surroy (-lowarioo for 1 1 q pe-ittorcd scrub, Ho considered Mr Gouldirg’s survey, which ho did rot disputo being HCCU'ate, v-a* made over all the g oui’d. He had 40 yours' survey ex petfence in New 7*. a'snd. J. U. Fo*tor, defendant, onirl ho engaged tbo plaintiffs to clear tho bush at IBi per sore. He br.d engaged Qil.inol Winter to do tho fuiv.y it d r ilio agreement. Ho hi-.d (old plaint- IT, when they a>kod fir further pajuioi t, that ho would abide by Goionci Wii-t-.r’s survey. Ha had accompanied Colonel Win'o during tho turvey, and thought it win a fair one.

Tho Court adjourned for lunch, after which adjournment the case was resumed, Mr Golding being recalled by the plaintiff's solicitor. lie contradicted much of Colonel Winter’s evidence as to “ grass patches." He could not account for the wide difference between the two plans, He was sure he measured the cut manuka carefully, and had made a correct estimate.

Air Coleman in addressing the Bench said that lie asked for a verdict for defendant on tho grounds (1) that according to tho agreement Colonel Winter’s measurement was final, (2) that tho weight of evidence was against the plaintiff’s and (d; flie plaintiff's wore stopped on account of their conduct. Colonel Winter had surveyed and measured the manuka while Mr Golding had merely surveyed the ground, 11c further pointed out that if Mr Golding’s measurement of 2UO acres was correct, each man was disposing of about six acres per week, and this was most unlikely. With regard to the second point ho contended that Colonel Winter had been accepted by the plaintiffs us the surveyor in the terms of the agreement. He quoted various authorities in support of liis ease.

Mr Nolan, in rep'y, pointed nut that itio men at no timo agroad to accopt Colonel Wiuter’s suivey. I; wt» simply stated in tbo ngroiLueiit that tho work was to ho surveyed. Mr Go’ding bad stated iu his evidence that he bad carefully turveyod and chained tbo whole of the woik, while Colonel Wintsr had merely tstirusted it where the maDulra was saatierod.

His Worship pointed out that the dispute w.a merely a' question of inoaeuromont. ' Co’ond Winter's evidence, he thought, was to ho relied on owirg to his lengthy experience, much more so thaa a younger man, He would give judgment for defendant to carry costs, 6j, Colonel Wintet’s fee dH I*, atd solicitor’s fees £4 2s.