FLAX FIRE CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1592, 27 July 1916, Page 4

FLAX FIRE CASE.

SPEIHS V. WALL.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE CONCLUDED.

The hearing of the action C. H. Spcirs v. P- F. Wall, a claim for £14,000 loss of flax alleged to have been caused by a fire from defendant’s property, was resumed at the Supreme Court, Palmerston, yesterday morning, before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. Mr C. P- Skerrett, with him Mr Cooper, appeared for plaintiff’, and Sir John Findlay, with him Mr Dunn, appeared for defendant.

Monday afternoon’s hearing was confined to the giving of evidence by E. L. Broad, O. Monrad, J. Harper, B. 8011, G. Burke, Maslin, and Samuel Mitchell, who were recalled.

The only further evidence in support. of the claim was that of plaintiff, who was re-called to supplement certain portions of his previous evidence.

This concluded plaintiff’s case, STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.

Defendant’s statement of defence is as follows —

(1) he admits that the plaintiff is the owner of the land mentioned in the first paragraph of the statement of claim, but he denies that there was on the said land an area of flax land comprising some two hundred and sixty acres.

(2) The defendant admits that he is the owner of a farm adjoining the property of the plaintiff. (3) The defendant admits that an the 25th day of February, 191(5, he lit a fire on bis said property, and on one other occasion betAveen 25tb February, 191(1, and the 11th day of March, 1010, attempted to burn two pal dies of bush on his said land, but he denies all the other allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim. (4) Defendant denies that the said fires lit by him spread on to the property of the plaintiff. Tbe defendant says that any fires started by him or by bis authority on his said land , had been extinguished long prior to the said 11th day of March, 191(1. The defendant denies that any fire lil by him has damaged the plaintiff.

(5) The defendant denies all the allegations contained in pa.ragra.phs 4 to tl inclusive of the statement of claim.

In opening for the defence, Sir John Findlay said the action was one in which plaintiff was slicing for the sum of £14,001), loss alleged lo have been sustained by plaintiff by a fire from defendant’s property. The point, was where had the lire come from, and their defence would be a complete denial that it came from defendant’s property. Coming to the evidence, however, it had been shown that a Icav years ago this swamp property had been bought from the Makerua Company at £ls per acre, and yet the values noAv put upon the swamp Avas so much inflated that it appeared that plaintiff was going to make this fire the happiest event of his life. Then there Avere experts produced avlio formed - estimates of the damage done Avithout having previously seen the flax. He asked the jury, as practical men, avus it possible to get at the true values in this Avay. It was most unfair and unreasonable. Only three years ago the plaintiff bought the land at £32 per acre Avith the llax, and as showing the value of good flax, it Avas Avorthy of mention that (he best llax land in the district Avas A’alued at £SO per acre, yet the claim made by plaintiff Avas far and away in excess of this figure, and Spoil’s’ Avas as yet a practically untried swamp. Counsel only made these few observations in passing, as the real question was; Where did the fire come from? Counsel contended that it did not come from defendant’s place. Defendant Avas kmnvn as a practical business man and a, good neighbour. He had decided to clear some of his hush land and let a contract to Jensen, a man of 30 years’ experience, to burn off tbe fallen bush, all due precautions being taken to prevent the lire getting out -of hand. The Aveather avus dry, and on Fcbrnai’y 25th, Jensen considered the condition favourable to commence to burn. The Avind avus from the north-Avest, Avhich was ttAvay from plaintiff’s land, and counsel said he intended to call the Dominion meteorologist, Mr Bates, in regard to the important question of the February 25th and 2(ith. At the time of starting his Avork, Jensen had 14 men in his charge. After the (ire had been started the Avind changed, and blew in the direction of Seifert’s, Avhere (ire eventually .broke out, but counsel Avould say that betAveen February 2(ith and March 10th, Avith the exception of three dry trees, there avus no fire in the belt of green bush on Wall’s boundary adjoining Seifert’s land, until the lire came from Seifert’s. On the night of February 2Cth and 27th, thei’e was heavy rain, AA’hich considerably reduced Wall’s fires. Later there Avere fires lighted on .seven different properties, Avith smoke everyAvhere, and how was it possible to locate the cause of the fire spreading to Speirs? Evidence would be called to prove clearly

that it did not come from Wall’s. The onus of proving where the fire originated which destroyed Speirs’ flax lay with the plaintiff, who must clear up this point before he could hope to succeed. Some of plaintiff’s witnesses had said that they had seen fires in the green belt on Wall’s boundary, but this could not be so, because men were then actually engaged in underscrubbing this particular bush, and if the bush was burning they would not continue their work unless they were madmen, and when (he jury had heard some of these underscrubbers in tbc witness box later the jurymen would conclude that they were anything but madmen. At this time Jensen exercised the closest scrutiny on this belt of bush, to see that it did not ignite, and between March 2nd and 11th visited the bush twice a. day, and after that once a day. Counsel then proceeded to review the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses at length.