Opunake S.M. Court.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 39, 13 November 1894, Page 2

Opunake S.M. Court.

Thursday, Bth November.

(Before Major Tuke, S.M., and G. W. Gane, Esq., J.P.)

Sells v. Mac Neill, claim £ll 14s, damages caused by bush fire. Mr Barton for plaintiff and Mr T. Shailer Weston for defendant. J. Mac Neill deposed that his sons had lit a fire, but denied that it had spread to do the damage complained of. Had visited the place about a month after the fire and examinedrthe ground between Section 58 and Mr Sells' land, and did not see any trace of fire crossing from one to the other. He sent his boys on the 18th to light the fire, and on that date the wind was from the S.E., which would blow the fire in the opposite direction from Sells' place. The wind, continued to blow froin the south-east for several days. Cross-examined by Mr Weston : On the 23rd it veered round to N.W., but blew lightly. On the 24th it blew hard from N.W., but on that day heavy rain fell, which, he considered, would be sufficient to put out any smoulderiug fire, if any existed at that time. A N.W. wind would not take the fire on to Sells'. Pieces of rotten post produced were taken from strainers. The greatest burn on Sells' place was at the point furthest from his section. Had received a letter from Sells claiming damage for loss of fencing caused by him (witness) having burned with a northerly wind. Sells had sent him a further letter etating that he would make no claim for grass burned, as he considered the benefit which the burn did to his jplace would compensate for that. D. Mac Neill deposed that he remembered lighting the fire on the 18th February on Section 53. Went down the boundary about a week after, but did not notice any trace of fire having crossed. There was a little smoke on Sells' place next the fence. There were only two trees then alight on Section 58.

Cross-examined by Mr Weston: Lit the fire at the top corner, and then all along by the river. There were other fires alight in the vicinity, one of which could be seen over the bush on Section 53. As far as he could judge, it appeared to be on Mr McHardy's. E. 0. Middleton deposed that the fence which had been destroyed between his place and Sells' by the fire had been renewed about 18 months prior to the fire. -A. Sells deposed: Had received a letter from Middleton informing him what damage had been done. .He replied to Middleton, requesting him to look after it on behalf of witness. About a month after he went and inspected it. There were traces to show that the fire had come from MacNeiU's place on to his. Cross-examined by Mr Weston: There was a certain amount of cocksfoot in pasture before the fire. The new pasture put down consisted of good grasses, but were usual ones for permanent pastures. s If the claim,for fencing had been met, he would not have charged for the grassing. Charged for the grassing because he had been put to the expense of com? ing into court for the purpose of obtaining redress. John Long deposed : Was on MacNeiU's section in July, but could not call it a good burn. Near the fence was not burnt at all. There was some light bush; standing still. C. Strorige deposed that he had seen Section 53 where the fire took place. Could not see bow the fire-could spread to Sells' place if a south-east wind was blowing. Prom the description of the burn he should not imagine it tiad been alight days. It was possible, but extremely improbable, that the fire would last for more than three days., Mr; Weston addressed the court on behalfof the -'defendant, and Mr Barwas reserved. Policed. Iti. This was a charge of sly-grog selling at Parihaka. Mr T. Shailer Weston appeared for defendant.

Constable Twouiey conducted the case for the police. It appeared from the evidence that there had been- a row between the and the informant in the case Bggata boy for a quart of beer, paying a shilling for on getting the beer he handed it" over to Constable Hiokmau' l jw]h.o immediately took proceedings. There was the customary, amount of Maori swearing; 'directly contradicting each other. "'.:■'

Mr Weston addressed the Bench, pointing out that it was a case of " utu" or revenge, and submitted that if his Worship found the charge proved he should deal as leniently as possible with defendant. His Worship, in giving judgment, said it was only a short time ago that these same parties, who were .now mixed up in this case, were brought before him, convicted, and fined £2O. • He did not, however, .admire the way the action .was got up by the informant,, aud, taking that into account, he would deal leniently with defendant. Fined £lO and costs (£4 19s 6d) or. 14 days' imprisonment. A week would be allowed to pay the fine. - Hough -y. Waka, claim £s"for value q'f a horse. - ,v - *. Mr T. Shailei-Weston for v defendantf. A nonsuit was gfanliedv:;^;^^...;;-'"'