BUCHANAN v. LAIRD.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1123, 10 December 1883, Page 2

BUCHANAN v. LAIRD.

Rehearing Granted.

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, Mr James Laird of Wanganui, the defendant in the recent case

Buchanan v Laird, heard at Hawera, applied for a rehearing of the case. Mr Barton, for Mr Fitzherbert, appeared in support of the application, while Mr Hamerton watched the proceedings on behalf of Mr Buchanan. Mr Barton in the courise of his address to the Court, said that since the case had been heard, Mr Laird had a, conversation with'Mr Goodson, a gentleman who resided near the plaintiff, Mr Buchanan. Mr Goodson, an old settler, who had lived on the Coast a long time, told Mr Laird that the ground in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s land was impregnated with the seeds of the Maori turnip or cabbage. That showed the soil was not virgin, as the plaintiffs had alleged, and which made so strong a point in their evidence. Mr Laird, just after the case had been decided,; had also had a conversation with Mr Freeman Jackson, who said that the Maoris who formerly resided at the place in question upon hearing the evidence of Mr Buchanan and his witnesses as to the soil being virgin, had sent a message to the pakeha—that was Mr Laird-—to say it was not true that the ground had not been broken before. Had that evidence been given before, the whole force of the plaintiff's and his witness’s evidence would have been destroyed. It would simply have been a question of weighing Mr Laird’s former care against the plaintiff’s case, unassisted by the overwhelming force of the evidence about the virgin soil. It could fairly be said Mr Laird was not aware of this evidence at the time of the hearing of the case, and he had not had time to hunt up the witnesses since. The evidence might be stronger, but he knew sufficient to ask the Court to grant a rehearing. Mr Hamerton said if he felt any justice would be done or advantage gained by a rehearing he would consent to it, but he felt that granting it would only lead to serious hardship to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The evidence of Messrs Livingstone and Me Lean about the land not being broken could be relied upon. When Mr Buchanan took this land part of it was bush and scrub. No doubt part of the clearing had been laid down by the Maoris in turnips, but it was ridiculous that the Maoris should put,down nearly 70 acres, marked so distinctly. There were <59 acres altogether. Of these 64 had been sown with turnips by Mr Buchanan, and rape had come up; five acres had been laid down in oats, and no rape had come up. There was no reason to doubt the witness’s evidence. The Maoris were never known to sow rape. It appeared to him that the evidence that decided the Court was not one point but many. The seed supplied to Mr Buchanan had been taken from two bags, one might have been turnip and the other rape. That would just account for (be manner in which the

crop came up. He thought the evidence adduced upon the last occasion was crushing. Unless affidavits were pat in that the witnesses Mr Laird had would bo forthcoming, the rehearing should not be granted. The costs should also be guaranteed.

Mr Barton said with regard to the fact that the Maoris would not be likely to plant their turnip seed in the same line it was exceedingly probable, and it was also probable that the Maoris did not grow 69 acres in one patch. But the Maoris were in the habit of shifting their plantations when they thought they had exhausted the soil, and in the course of years they' might have-covered 69 acres, and so that when this crop was put in, the dormant seed'would come up. There was nothing to show that the seed had come up regularly in rows, but on the contrary it came up in patches, just as jt would if the case was a« he stated. He took it that the Court did not take the evidence before it on the last occasion as conclusive but considered that supposing the evidence ho had staled could be adduced, it would materially alter the position. His friend said the seed might have been mixed in filling the bags. That was perfectly true, but that was a matter for argument nponV rehearing,fand not oho upon which the present application should be decided by the Court. If the rehearing were not granted, a great hardship wonld be, done to Mr Laird. With regard to terms; ho waslprepared to give ample security for the amount of the judgment and costs.. With regard to what his friend had said that affidavits should be laid before the Court, he had no objection to that. If the Court was not satisfied with his statement of evidence, he was prepared to back it np by affidavits. . ; n His. Worship-made a few remarks in the course of which- he said'that wjien jhe case was being heard, after . the wi'nesses had given ’evidence, the witnesses for the plaintiff were recalled in order that they might give evidence as to whether-the crop that came np with the turnips was Maori cabbage or tape, ! lnd three who had all inspected-the ' swore that it was Broad. Essex Supposing for the sake of the-.case was reheard, and it was that the land had been / broken .and Maori cabbage came np, how was it that Broad Esse;x Rape came up ? ■ -- 4: Mr Barton, said that if they proved that the land; had been broken incite face of Mr Buchanan's .evidence to the contrary it was an equally good hypothesis that- without his knowledge the Essex Rape had got into the ground and laid dormant ever since* 5 - Mr Hamerton submitted that the other side would have to prove that the rape had been sown. Mr would be prepared lb-show that it was impossible, whchf the seeds had just germinated, to tell Maori cabbage,from rape. .. •/; The Court, in granting the re-hearing, said that the case must be confined to the points at issue—-whether the Tand had been broken np previously, and whether Maori cabbage or rapehad coma up/ ; " - : ' V'

The re-hearing was fixed for next Court day at Hawern; when, if Mr Fitzherbert, who is at present indisposed, is unable to attend, it will be adjourned to allow of his doing so.