MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4394, 24 March 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CROP DAMAGED. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. A claim of £lO was made by Henry Desmond Sorensen against Robert Whitten in the Paeroa Court tlhls morning, before Mr J. 11. Salmon, S.M. The grounds of the claim were that defendant Whittep had lighted a fire on the roadside which had ultimately spread and scorched complain,ant’3 tomatoes. Samuel nurseryman, Paeroa, said he was quite conversant with the crop in question; namely, tomatoes. The tomatoes had evidently been well looked after. Some fifty or sixty plants were ruined by the fire, and should have been otherwise worth 2s per plant. Henry Desmond Sorensen, plaintiff in the action, said the fire was lighted about 6.15 and was burning fiercely. There was a howling gale from the east and the heat scorched the tomatees, checking their growth. Witness told Whitten that the fire was likely to burn him out, and that he had no insurance on his furniture. Whitten replied that he did not care. Plaintiff then pushed Whitten out of the toad in order to put the fire out. Defendant (Whitten) denied that the fence had caught fire while he was in charge of the fire. His Worship said he assessed the damage at £6, pr 60 plants at 2si> for which he would give judgment. A counter-claim flor rent, £9 15s 4d, was also allowed, and judgment given accordingly. WHITTEN V, WELLS. Payment for hire and loss of a bull was claimed by Robert Whitten from Frederick John Wells, the sum being twelve guineas. The bull ,was not returned by defendant, the complainant stated Li the witness box, and the next thing that he heard was that the bull was in the pound and had been sold. The bull was. worth twelve guineas. Defendant, F. J. Wells, master butcher, Paeroa., said he had told complainant Whitten that he could put the bul.l in his paddock if he liked, the fee arranged being 7s 6d. The bull, got out on Show day. There had been no .arrangement for hire of the bull by the week. Defendant was a regular buyer of stock. Grade Jersey bulls during the last two months were fletching £1 and £2; in some cases .there was not even a bid. His Worship said he could not give judgment until he had an expert’ opinion as to the value of the bulk Counsel fpr the defendant submitted that his client had not been guilty of negligence, and that he had complied with, the law in such a manner as to be free from a charge of lack of care. His Worship held that It was. defendant’s place to let complainant know when the cow was served, so that the bull could then be takenback. Plaintiff was entitled to damages, the amount of which he would reserve, with the consent ofl both parties, until he got an expert and independent valuation. .