FLAX FIRE CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1561, 8 June 1916, Page 3

FLAX FIRE CASE.

SPETRS v. WALL. A CLAIM FOR £14,000 DAMAGES. if speeial sitting of the Supreme Court was commenced in Palmerston North on Tuseday morning, before Mr Justice Edwards and the following jury : —C. R. Beattie (foreman), A. 11. Grant, A. Giorgi, C. Usmar, P. Neilson, M. J. Kennedy, W. S. Carter, L. H. Collinson, K. McDonald, W. Dawick, W. Kirk, and P. A. McHardy. The action arose out of a llax lire which occurred in the Shannon dislijcl during the last week in February and the first week in March of this year. The (ire is alleged to have commenced on the property of Percy F. Wall, former, of Hatuma, and spread to the adjoining tlax land belonging to Claude Hamilton Speirs, llaxmiller, of Shannon, on which some 202 acres of (lax were destroyed. Tin* estimated value of this (lax and (he damage done is £14,000, which amount was claimed by the plaintill, C. 11. Speirs, from P. F. Wall, the defendant.

Mr C. P. Skerroll. K.C., with him Mr 11. R. Cooper, appeared for plaintiff, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr M. T. Dunn, for the defendant. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. Plaintiff’s statement of claim is as follows Plaintiff is owner of lots 1 and 2, part 2f, Manawatu, Kahntnaki, on which there was prior to (he 11th of March. 191(i. an area <if llax land comprising some 2H2 acres. The adjoining land was (he proper!v of defendant, and between February 25th, 1010, and March 11th, .191(1, the defendant hy his servants and agents lit (ires on Ids properly. Tin 1 tin's spread on to the property of the plaintill, and destroyed (he whole of Ihe growing llax and (he greater quantity of the roots thereof, and also about 200 chains of tramlines laid down hy plaintiff. At the time of the (ire, the amount of growing llax on the plaintiff's property exceeded 7,000 tons, of a value of 32s per ton at the least. As a result of the lire, the said land is now useless tor the purpose ot growing tlax, and can only he used for farming purposes, and is therefore greatly depreciated in value. Plaintiff therefore claims ( I) Ihe sum of £14,000 damage- :

(2) such further and other relict in the premises as lo which the Court mav deem the plaintiff entitled.

THE.DEFENCE

In his statement of defence, defendant admits (1) that the plaintiff is the owner of the laud mentioned, hut denies that there was on the laud au area of (lax comprising 202 iicres ; (2) the defendant admits that he is the owner of a farm adjoining the property ol the plaintill . (3) the defendant admits that on February 251 h, 101(5, he lit a lire on his property, and on one other occasion between February 251 h and March 11th he attempted to burn iwo patches of bush on his land, but lie denied all the other allegations , (4) the defendant denies that the tires lit by him spread on to the properly of the plaintiff, and asserts that any tires started by him or by his authority on his land had been extinguished long prior to March lllh ; (5) the defendant denies that, any fire lit by him damaged the plaintiff . • Mr Skerrelt briefly outlined plaintiff's claim as set out in the statement, and generally described to the jury (he principal features of the property on which the plaintiffs loss had occurred.

Sir John Findlay shortly set out (he main lint's of deleave, which were to the effect that the (ire which destroyed plaintiff’s llax did not originate on defendant’s land, but spread from Seifert’s swamp, on which fires were burning on the 9th, Kith, and 11th March. The Court then adjourned to allow the jury to visit the scene ot the lire.

Upon the Court resuming, the first witness called was C. H. Kpeirs, llaxmiller, Shannon, the plaint ill, who said he was (he owner of a property consisting ol -IGS acres neat Shannon, on which the lire occurred. One hundred and seven acres of this area were in bush. The area of growing flax was 18!) acres. Mi Wall, the defendant, was the owner of the adjoining properly, consisting of 28!) acres, most of which was formerly under hush. Wall had put on buslifellers and the bush, with the exception of some 25 acres adjoining witness’ houndary had been felled. On February 24th, witness was working on the Kingston road, one and a half miles from his own properly, when he met Mr Edgai, Wall’s manager, who said he vas going to have another hum, and witness said he had arranged with Mr Wall to have as many of witness’ men as possible to watch the tires. Mr Edgar replied that he had any amount of men. Witness then said lie would only send two men to watch his tram and swamp. He had no intimation from Mr AAall or any of his men that they were going to start his (ire next day. Had they done so, witness could have.spared 12 or 14 men to assist with the fire. Witness noticed smoke commencing to rise from Wall’s properly in the afternoon of the 25th, and sent two men to ascertain if Wall was burning his bush. Witness thpn left on a business visit to Shannon, and on his way back he could see clearly that; a, large lire was burning in the direction "of Mali’s property, and witness went on at once to ascertain where the tire was. He found that AVall’s men had lit their lire and were continuing lighting, and it was spreading right through the section. The wind was from the south-west. AVitness had his mill slopped and

men summoned to put out the fire in Seifert’s, to which the fire had now spread. Witness informed Edgar, Wall’s manager, that Seifert’s swamp was on fire, and witness asked where his men were, to which Edgar replied they were home, and witness told him to get them. Edgar then went away. Witness then summoned help from Seifert’s mill. Shortly after witness ascertained that the fire had crossed into Seifert's, hut so far witness’ property had escaped at this time ; about; 7 p.m. a number of Wall’s men arrived to light the fire on Seifert’s land, and shortly afterwards Seifert's men also came on tin* seem l with Ihe same purpose. Witness visited the fire again the next day, and met Edgar. Witness told him he was the luckiest, fellow in the world in not having burnt (he whole country out as far as Palmerston. Edgar replied that he had left it in the hands of Jensen, and that, he did not, know (hat he was going to burn himself until ball' an hour ho fore the fire was'started. On Monday, March (ith, he heard chopping in a piece of green hush between Wall’s boundary and Seifert’s boundry. He concluded thill this bush was lo be felled. He went lo Wellington on Friday, March 111 h. and on the next day returned. When he was at Levin on his return he received a. telegram from his brother in consequence of which he went up to the mill. He was informed Dial the fire had obtained such a hold that it could not possibly he stopped. He saw Edgar on the same evening, and Edgar said, “I’m very sorry. The lire did not start from oar place (ml from Seifert’s.” He (old Edgar later that he would hold Edgar responsible for the fire. He also told Edgar to 1 oil Wall. Edgar reiterated that the fire did not start from his place. There had been one light shower of rain three or four days after February 25tb, but it did not have the slightest effect upon the fire. He had now 90 to 95 acres of llax left,, hut he could not say how much definitely, as he had not had it surveyed. At the lime of the burn Seifert’s llax was three years old and witness’ six years. In consequence witness' llax was heavier and longer. He had secured 447 lons of llax from 20 acres. He hud been (he owner of the property for two vears.

Plaint!('(', continuing, described 1 lie* effects of (lie lire on (he llax in has swamp, lie said that as (he soil was of a peaty nature it held (lie lire, with (In 1 result that a larger portion of the llax roots were burnt right out of the "round, whilst percentages of (he remainder might groAv again. It would eosl 35s per lon to purchase llax to-day to eipial that whieh had lieen destroyed. To Sir John Findlay : He had no doubt whatever that the tire that caused the damage was started on Wall’s property and not on Seifert’s, He was absolutely sure of this. He did not know the direction of (In* wind on the Till and 18th of March at Shannon. Witness asserted that he would contradict Mr Bates as to the direction of the wind at Shannon on dales between 7(h and 11 th of March. He would say that it would he impossible for any lire-carrviug sparks to be carried from Seifert's on to his property and cause the lire that eventuated. He knew this because of his peculiar knowledge of the ground. If the direction of the wind as shown by the meteorological return was correct it would have been a “right” wind, and Seifert's would not have been burnt. But he would emphatically conlradicl that the wind was in the direction slated on February 25th. On (hat day there was a calm in (he morning, and the wind came up in the afternoon from the southwest. There was a lire at a neighbour’s, Hume's, who was burning in February and March. There, were no strips or lanes in his (lax as a preventative against fire, although he knew that Seifert’s had this precaution. There was a mutual (ire board among the (laxmillers, but he did not belong to it, although he had been requested to do so. Xo llax had been cut off his land since he had been burnt out. Before (he war broke out fibre was worth .€2O per ton ; now it is worth £3O per ton. Witness denied that he had interviewed Mr Seifert to see whether the lire started in Seifert’s or Wall’s place. Witness was under no misapprehension as to where the lire started.

The Court (hen adjourned until 10 a.in. (o-dav.