Strange Lawsuit In Scotland

Horowhenua Chronicle, 15 June 1916, Page 3

Strange Lawsuit In Scotland

* HOCSE-OWNER FINMJ FOR JftJiMOVLXG A TREE. In the Small Debt Court, at Helensburgh, Scotland, oheritt Stacdiiiarmid hoard) proof in an action where Alexander Gemniell, Letor&ult, 26 West Montrose street, Helensburgh (subtenant; with Clie consent or Charles Couper, "merchant, London (tenant;, sued Andrew Frew, contractor, DhuhiTl, iHelensburgh, who is proprietor ol Letrault Cottage, tor £20, in respect of damages sustainedi owing to the defender, or some party authorised and instructed; by him, unwarrantably, on the November 4, entering the .grounds of LetraufTj and without pursuer's knowledge, permission or consent, and cutting down the beautiful and stately Araucaria, which occupied the centre of tho lawtt in front of the house, thus destroying the privacy of the house and amenity of the grounds, audi depriving pursuer of full enjoyment of the house, offices and grounds let to liim. Defender admitted giving instructions under a mistaken belief that as proprietor of the house, lie could remove the tre,o, which was obstru't'„s; the light land ventilation of the house. An offer of an, apology and £5 had been made. Mr J. B. MaciachJan, writer, Helt» ><- burgh, for defender, mado a statement to the above effect, remarking that he had offered £5, which wiaa sure y sat- ; ficieut for a "monkey puzzle" tree. Mir Laird, writer, ot Glasgow, for pursuer, maintained it was unwiarrant- j able that iMr Maclachlan's client should enter any ground; land cut iown a tree without consent or authority. It was, he said, a mutter tor proof. Proof was then led. Pursuer said his object in coming to Helensburgh was for the heaith ol his wife and baby. The situation ot Letrault, with the tree in front, appealed to him very strongly when selecting ft house, as the tree formed a complete screen from the highway and his wife, who was extremely ill, was able to" walk in seclusion between the tree and the house. He was almost ill with annoyance land regret at the loss or the tree, the most beautiful tree he had ever seen, and he had; been all over the world. He also complained that the baby's pram had now to sit in the open wherefas it tormerly was sheltered from sun and rain by tho tree. Tho privacy of the rooms could now only be secured toy screens which were previously mST required.

Mr Samuel Bryden, property agent, spoke of letting the house to pursuer. At the time he said Mr Uemiuelj was more taken up with the tree than the furnishing of the houee. He nadi a very delicate wife and baby and was anxious for seclusion. The tree, witness thought, was the finest in Hebnsburgli of its kind. ilr .Frew, proprietor of the house, said his objection to the tree was because it spoiled tfitT look of-the house; no sun got to it. He thought he was doing a good turn to taking the tree *w»j. Mr Miller, buildetr, spoke regarding the dimensions of the tree. He also said that in 1911 the drains were choked, and; pipes broken, and the sewage which escaped encouraged the roots. The Sheriff awarded £10 damages sndi expenses to pursuer.