RANGIOTU FARMERS AT LAW.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2279, 21 May 1921, Page 3

RANGIOTU FARMERS AT LAW.

MOORE v. W. B. V. PEARCE.

DAMAGES AWARDED FOR ASSAULT AND TRESPASS

At the Palmerston Supreme Court on Thursday, before Mr Justice Salmond, Douglas Gifford Moore, Melville R. G. Moore and Cecil G. Moore, all of Rangiotu, dairy fanners, proceeded against IV. B. V. Pearce, farmer, also of Rangiotu, for the amount of £175. The statement of claim set out that by agreement plaintiffs were and had been since September 25th, 1919, lessees of about 50 acres of the Aorangi Land Drainage Board’s reserve. The defendant was the owner of lands adjacent to the reserve. Plaintiffs claimed that since September 25th, 1919, defendant had repeatedly and persistently, by his servants and agents, trespassed upon the leasehold lands of the plaintiffs, and used the lands as a means of access to and from his own lands with horses and drays and cattle, notwithstanding warnings that plaintiffs were lessees of the said lands and objected to his trespassing. Plaintiffs also claimed that defendant, by bis servants and agents, had removed from the reserve certain bridges and crossings which were affixed to the freehold. Another claim made was that on July 20th, 1920, defendant had trespassed on the lands of the plaintiffs with two dray-loads of hav, and, finding the plaintiffs’ gate locked, had ordered his men to force 'the lock with a pick, which was done. Plaintiffs considered that the acts of the defendant had prevented them from getting the free and proper use of the lands, and had caused damage to the pastures thereon, and that the removal of the bridges had caused the plaintiffs to lose the use of the lands for many weeks. Plaintiffs therefore claimed general damages for trespass £.IOO, damage to pasture £25, loss of pasture through removal of bridges £SO, and also an injunction ‘restraining defendant from further trespassing on the lands.

The defence was a complete denial of the allegations made in the statement of claim. Much detailed evidence was called by plaintiffs to show that trespass had been committed. It was admitted that there had been bad feeling between 11. G. Moore and defendant for many years. His Honour said the case was obviously and unfortunately the result of ill-feeling between the parties concerned. As to how it: originated he knew nothing, and would say nothing. lie held that the trespass had been clearly proved, and that plaintiffs were therefore entitled to damages. The only questions involved were the amount of the damages and the right of plaintiffs to obtain an injunction as well. He thought the case was a proper one for an injunction. He was satistied that up to the time of the issue of a writ by plaintiffs, there had been repeated acts of trespass. The trespass in July, especially mentioned, had been a defiant and deliberate trespass, and even since the issue of the writ there had been one ease of deliberate trespass. As to the question of damages, be thought they were recoverable, firstly for the removal of the bridges, secondly, for the trespass by the breaking of the lock on the gates, and thirdly for the trespass of slock. He estimated the value of replacing the bridges at £2O, damages for deliberate trespass £25, and for the damage done by stock £5 would be allowed. The injunction would also be allowed, and also costs on the lowest scale and witness’s expenses.

Douglas Gifford Moore further claimed from W. B. V. Pearce the sum of £IOO for trespass and assault.

Ilis Honour held that the trespass was clearly proved, and that it had been aggravated by reason of the fact that it wus in defiance of an injunction issued by the Supreme Court. He could not treat such a trespass as trivial, and'defendant would have to pay £lO damages. He did not believe the as.sanit was committed in self-defence, and lie thought it was unprovoked. It had caused plaintiff a considerable amount of pain and disablement, and lie would he allowed £SO damages. Costs would he against defendant on the lowest scale, together with witness’ expenses.