CLAIM FOR A SHED.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1934, 16 November 1906, Page 3

CLAIM FOR A SHED.

In the Magistrate’s Court before Captain Tucker and W. Akroyd, J.’sP. I yesterday, George Eobort Moore sued George Saunders and Eliza Saunders 1 for £lB ront and damages for removal 1 of shed. Mr A, Coleman appeared for plaintiff and Mr F. W. Nolan for de-

fendant’s, Mr Coleman said that defendant's had confessed the claim for rent, which amounted to £B, and the amount his

client was suing for was £lO, being dama | f»es and value for removal of shed. This shed formerly stood on two sections one of which had been purchased by defendants from plaintiff, and they had removed it without permission and had stood it

on their own ground. George Kobert Moore, plaintiff, said that last year his land had been cut up and sub-divided into sections; in sub. dividing same, aline had been run through i the' shed, so that it was partly in section 6 i a ad partly in section 8 ; defendant’s had purchased section 6; the shed was not 0 lixturo and had been pulled into its s position; the shed was old and had . heen repaired; a new shed would cost

about £.13 if the inatorial in tho old shod, brick, iron, etc, wore utilised; aftor Mrs Saimdors bought tho section, ho wont to look mid found tho shod gotto, tho timber, iron and bricks boing stackod in dolondant’s ground ; wlion ho saw defendant Saimdors afterwards, ho told witnoss that tho shod had boon blown down by wind; witnoss was claiming £lO.

By Mr Nolan: Wituens did not know how far thu shod was on his sootion ; ho wa't not prepared to swear no part of the shed was fixod ; ho oot.ld not givo a value of tho shod, and could not oxnotly say what it was worth. Pressed by Mr Nolan, ho uaid it might ho worth about £7 lO.i ; wit.'icos could not tell how old tho shod was ; at the tiuto cf the sale of section to Mrs Saunders that lady know witness was going to remove tho shod ; Mr Somorvell givo witness a price for temoving the sited, hut found that it waa too old to bo mnjvod.

By Mr dole-man: It would cost defendant £l3 to replace tho shed, Mr Tocsdale, liconeetl surveyor, rotnembored tho shed in qursiiou. Ho had surveyed plaintiff’s property for subdivision twolvo months ago, aud romomberod that otto of tho lines of tho eurvoy had gone through the shed, but oould not eav at what distance.

’ For tho dofonoo Mr Nolan said that he 1 would prove that plaintiff's intorest in tho shod was pvc.ctiou.Uy nil, aod that only about three feet of the shad was on Mr Moore’s propovty. Moreovor, tbo shed was a fixtuto. Mrs Saunders, ono of tho dofondauts, said that sho and her husband previously . rented a eo'-tago from plaintiff. Tuiro \vas a shed at the back of th;s eobisge. , Mr Somorvell had oome up to move shod, j but said it was too rolton to do eo. About j two feet of tho shed was on sootion 8 i (plaintiff’s seetion), tho romninder boing £ on her property (section 6). Part of uhed t was on sleds and part on piles; tho sleds t wero sunk into tho ground. Tho shed wee Iso old that it wub always falling down. Aftor Mr Somorvell tried to removo it, it oould not bo used.

By Mr Ooloman: Witnoss was suro that tho shed was fastonod to pilos. Wits ness thought the inatorial was worth £i ; tho matorial was etill on the ground, By Mr Nolan : The shod was pushed down by her husband, aud whou it was pushed down the major portion of tho materia! fell on hor sootion. John Somervell, ourponter, knew the ehed, Mr Mooto askod him to remove it, but witness was unable to do so, as it was too rotten. The shed was very old ; it might have seou Noah ; it was partly on sleds and partly on blocks, having evidently been a movable buildiDg whioh had been added to, another sootion beiug joiuodou. Questioned as to value, witness said to leavo it aloue it was worth something; to move it was worth very little. Tne material was not worth more than 30s. By tho Bench ; If the building had been new it would have been worth abeul £lB. Questioned as to Us life, witness said it was tn a bad state of consumption, but might have ia-ted two or three years. By Mr Colentan: The shed was fastened to blocks. One man could not have pushed over the shed as lie (witness) left it.

Captain Tucker: Samson might, George Saunders, principal defendant, said the shod was mostly oil tho “missus’ ” land. When fencing the section ho had to remove two sheds. He pushed the shed down as it was a danger to his children, His son had tried to use the timber of the shed, but it was too rotten.

John Wilson corroborated a good deal of the evidence as to tho condition and position of the shed. He wouldn’t take the shed as a gift. He thought the value of tho shed was about £l.

By tho Bench : £3 would be an exaggerated value. He would not give more than £1 for it. Counsel for both parties having addressed the Bench, Captain Tucker said that from what the Bench could see of it, plaintiff was entitled to about a quarter of tho shed which was actually on his property, and as tho highest value placed on tho property was L 3 thoy would allow plaintiff LI. Plaintiff was also entitled to the bricks which were also on his property, and as defendants had stated the bricks were no good thoy would have no objection to give them up. The Bench would therefore allow plaintiff LI for the bricks, to be reduced to Is if the bricks were replaced on the spot they wero taken from on plaintiff’s property within one week. Costs L2 14s were also allowed.