RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 280, 26 November 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

fßefore L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] Dencker v. J. A. Harlet. Action to recover £91 10s, the value of fencing destroyed and damaged by defendant setting fire to it. Thirty chains were wholly burned down, for which £52 10s was claimed; and 65 chains partially burnt, valued at £39. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Acton Adams for the defendant. Defendant paid £10 into Court, stating that the fire was entirely owing to an accident. Christain Dencker, the lessee of Mount Heslington, stated that he was living in the Moutere about the end of September when he was informed by his boys of the fire. On going there he found 30 chains completely destroyed, and 65 partly burnt. On account of this he had to move his cattle and horses. The fences were substantial and always kept cattle and horses in. The cost of putting up as good a fence as that wholly burnt would be 35s per chain. Cross-examined : It had been at one time suggested by Mr Hastilow that by burning the gorse a number of rabbits would be destroyed, and he had thought of doing this but had given up the idea on learning that his neighbors would not join with himiu putting up a new fence. A temporary fence could be made by wattling. Had not told Harley that a fortnight's work by two men would repair the damages. Whatever^communications he had had with Harley or others were without prejudice. Did not tell Hill he would settle it for a fortnight's wages for two men. Re-examined: When he spoke to Hirley he was willing tolshare the loss with him as he was under the impression that the fire had been accidental, but he had since learned that it was a piece of recklesness. Thomas Tunnicliff said he was the next neighbor of Dencker's. Saw ?he fence burning. There must have been 70 or 80 chains burnt. About 50 chains would cost 30s to make it good, and the balance 20s. Cross examiued: Had said it was a good job the fence was burnt as it would get rid of the rabbits. It would be better for him than for Dencker, as he grew crops and Dencker did not. Had arranged with Dencker to burn it, and it would have been done a week before the Are took place if Dencker had been there and the weather favorable. On the day of the fire the wind was blowing fier.ely. By the Bench : There are between 20 and 30 chains more burnt than we intended to do. Mr Adams : A man can wattle ten chains a day, cannot he ? Witness : I'd like to see you do it. It would cost his wife two shillings a day to wash his clothes. The wattling could not be done under 5s a chain. W. White : Had seen the fence. It would cost 5s a chain to wattle for sheep, and to keep cattle a post and one rail fence would be required, costing perhaps 7s a chain. Cross-examined : The Road Board were going to order Dencker to clear the gorse. Had they done so, the cheapest way to get nd of it would have been to burn the lot, but that would only have affected the part near the road. Thomas Snowden : Had considerable experience in gorse fences. Had seen this fence. From 70 to 100 chains were burnt. One half would cost 30s to 32s to put into complete repair, and the rest from 12s to 17s Cross-examined : The fence had been one which would turn anything. Did not approve of gorse hedges as a rule, but had many on his own place he should be sorry to see destroyed. William Hildreth, junior, gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness. Cross-examined : The feuce had been up about 15 years. The heart of the posts and rails is perfectly good now. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Adams said that the feuce, which was acknowledged to be a great nuisance on account of it harboring rabbits, had been accidentally burnt by a shooting party, of which Mr Harley was one. A few days after, Dencker had offered to tuke a fortnight's wages for two men. and thU would be sullicient to repair all the damages dove, J. A. Hurley : I was shooting on Mount Heslington on the 2lst September, aud the fence was burnt in consequence of a lire whicli I lighted. After the fire had burnt itself out, Hildreth and Hastilow looked over the fence and said that no damage had beeu done, but that ifc was a good burn. I oifered to pay £1 or jG2 if anything was required. I heard no more about it until a week later, when I met Dencker, and he spoke to me about the fire He said it would take two men a fortnight to repair damages. I proposed to leave it to Hildreth aud Ifaslilow, and he agreed, but next day withdrew his consent. VVe then agreed to ieave it to Hill, but that also he withdrew Thomas Hill said he had been on the ground with Harley, and afterwards met Dencker, who said he would be willing to abide by his decision. He proposed thafc Harley should pay £10, which he considered over fche mark but thought it would be better for him to pay it than go to law. Dencker refused. The damage done he considered very trifling, and he thought 4s to 5s per chain would be sufficient for about ten chains, and the rest ought not to cost more than one .Shilling rer chain. A man ought to do eight or ten chains a day, and wages were six shillings per day. Cross-examined: Went over the place with Harley before seeing Dencker. Did not see the whole extent of the damage, but only a part of it. ' • William Hastilow stated that he had put up the post and rail fence 16 years ago, when it cost £1 0s 4d per chain. He knew that it had beeu intended to burn the gorse, and did not think that any more damage had beeu occasioned thau if it had been done inten tjonally. Two' op three other witnesses were called to prove Ifyat an exorbitant demand was being made by the plaintiff, and His Worship then stated that he should Ije at the Brightwater Court next week, and woald then go on to the ground and judge for himself.