TIMBER MILLERS AT VARIANCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3983, 16 July 1915, Page 2

TIMBER MILLERS AT VARIANCE.

A TE KARAKA DISPUTE

DAMAGES CLAIMED FOR BREACH

OF AGREEMENT,

Some considerable time was taken up at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday adjusting accounts between two To Karaka sawmillors.

Peacocks and Co. (Mr Burnard) proceeded against Albert Nicholson and Ann Nicholson (Mr Etlicrington) to recover £ll7, made u.n as follows: Rent £25, royalty £7 10s, damages £BO, and £4 10s, cost of chaff sold. Hilary James Peacocke, managerdirector of the plaintiff company, .said that on March 6, 1914, lie entered into an agreement with defendant to lease to him 50 acres, half tho piece of land the company leased from Mr Hall at Waihora. Under the agreement defendant was bound to erect a substantial fence, but had not done so. A.s a result stock got ow to about 35 acres which had been newly cleared, and did 'damage to the young grass. Witness was compelled to fence the property himself. Witness lost the use.of the pfeeo. for a year. The cost of the fence witness had been compelled to erect was roughly £6O. Ho estimated his total loss through Hi i failure of defendant to erect the fence at well over £IOO. -By M r Etlicrington: Witness had leased the whole 100 acres, including the portion leased by defendant, to other people. Ho gave no notice to defendant. Witness had the line for the fence surveyed, and gave the plan to defendant. • Had defendant carried out his agreement witness’ property - would have been completely fenced and protected. Witness had five waggon horses grazing on lus property, and these would to a certain extent damage the young grass. Had defendant kept bis. part of the contract to fence witness would have fenced off a paddock for his waggon horses, but it war, no use doing this vl'/'n hundreds of head of stock were free to come on to the young grass. Tho trespass of stock ronf mued until witness erected the fence to keep them out. , „ . To Mr Burnard: Had defendant erected the fence this- trespass would not have occurred. Witness had frequently dogged tho stock off the property, but they came hack m drovesj and at last he had to give it up as a bad job. / , , , Albert Hector Gordon, shepherd, •said that he inspected this property in May. 1915. He thought of leasin'l - the property, but would not tako the lease as part’s of it would require to ho resown in grass. On the day witness inspected the property ho assisted to drive stock off plaintiff s property. „„ , , . By Mr Etheriugton: Jhe stock lie drove off did not belong to defendant. It was easv for stock to get from the I road on to defendant’s property | This closed the case for the plainAjbert Nicholson, one of the defendanYs, said it- was a hard matter for neighbors to keep stock from getting through the fences, no matter how securely they were erected. Witness’ property was just as securely fenced as was plaintiff’s. The tence between plaintiff’s land and RangaOra station was not a legal fence, but a patch one.. , Stock could get on to plaintiff's property through his hood gates, as those had been washed away bv the flood. t . , , By Mr Burnard: Witness enters l into* an agreement with plaintiff to put. up the fence. If Mr Peacocke had carried out his part, of the < on- • Tract witness would have done hechare Mr Peacocke supplied witness with a surveyed plan of the fence line. There was- nothing to stop stock coming from Rangatira station on to plaintiff’s property even now After counsel had reviewed too facts the presiding 1 Magistrate (Mr R. pFlorance. SAD, said it looked to him that plaintiff’s claim for .f>o should he reduced, as plaintiff had had some use of tho land. He would allow 630 for the cost of the fence, and £2O for damage to the grass. Judgment would, therefore, be lor • with costs £S 3s against the first- defendant. Judgment was given agams, tho second defendant to the extent of her means. A COUNTER CLAIM.

Albert Nicholson (Mr Ethernet :n) inen pro .ceded against 11. J. Peacocke and Co. (Mr Burnard) on a counter claim, to recover £3 t os 9d tor earning done and fencing material supplied. Certain items were admitted; amounting to £'2(3 -Is 6d. Albert Nicholson, sawnnller, le iva ,-aka said lie did the carting forth in the statement of claim. Eighteen pence per 100 was the usual charge for carting during the wmtei months. The charges were lair ami usual. The charge- for the flooring cramp (38s) was for a cramp he lent to defendant, which the latter did not return. . By Mr Burnard: Peacocke was sei--1;j the timber which witness carton. 'ldle rate was Is 3d per 100 for summer and Is 6d per 100 for winter carting. Witness had 200 posts split, and defendant took those and erected a fence with them. The natives took some of the pVts, hut Mr Peacocke dunged the natives for these, Mr Burnard said the defendant admitted on the counter-claim £2O - 6 cl. Plaintiff admitted that m could not produce any books showing how the amounts were made up. l-o-fendant would produce his books, showing that ,plaintiff's claim was erroneous. With regard to the posts claimed for by plaintiff, Mr Peaeocke s books would show that 00 posts had been split-by plaintiff and 200 by mitives. Hilary J. Peacocke, manager director of the defendant company, san that lie had gone carefully thuuigl the items in the counter claim. I ’lamtiff carted 8593 of timber ior witness to the railway station at Te Kat. ■ The rate at which plaintiff agreed to do the carting was Is 3d per fOOlt. All the posts which plaintiff split numbered 60, and witness allowed him lull market value for these. . Py Air E therm "ton : Plaintiff had carted* at Is Gd per 100 for witness in the month of February. • His Worship said that the case was lef t in a somewhat unsatisfactoi > state People should come to tin. Court prepared with better evidence. He suggested that the ease should be adjourned. If he gave judgment no , ho would simply have to niiilcc a si of at it—a thing which lie chpctid t ; Mr Ethenngton said that they would prefer that lfis Worship should deal with the case. . , , , His Worship said, m that case, ho would give judgment for the items admitted, totalling £2O Is 6d, witi costs £2 10s. i. Mr It S. Florance, S.M., rem.uked that if the parties discovered later that mistakes had been made m any of the accounts they could surely sec that restitution was made.