PAPAKURA.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 18, 5 March 1915, Page 3

PAPAKURA.

See also Pages 1 r.n'l 4 STACK FIRE SEQUEL

Considerable local interest was displayed in the hearing of a claim that was commenced befure Mr Frazer, S.M., at the Papakura Court on Monday, in respect of the value of a stack of oats, destroyed by lire on the 13th uit. The plaintiff was Mr Thomas Gillard, farrrer, of Papakura, who sued Mr P. Sweeney, also a Papakura farmer, ien whose property the stack had i stood, for £75 said to ba the value j of the stack and £5 damages. Mr Schnauer appeared for plainlit? and Mr W. Hackett for the defendant, who counter-claimed for £26 9s lid ir respect nf the cost of tha erectim cf a fence and ploughing In opening the plaintiffs case, Mr Schnauer urged that if judgment was given in favour of bis client he was entitled to recover the full amount claimed, as such represented the market value of the destroyed stack, which defendant hud refused to allow plaintiff to remove. The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that he (plaintiff) agreed with Mr Clark Smith, (defendant's brother-in-law), since dead, some eighteen months ago to take over the property and to break it in, the arrangement being that he (plaintiff) was to s:cure to crops off it and to beer half the cost of erecting a fence en one side of the ground. On Mr Clark Smith's death the property passed into defendant's possession. His first crop in potatoes and turnips only gave him a return of £7. He then put in a crop of oats, which was recently duly stacked, the stack in hi 3 opinion representing ten tons of chaff. He insured the stack shortly after it was built with the Atlas Company, together with another stack, for £IOO, £SO each stack. On January 22nd last he received a.i offer frorr Auckland to buy 10 tons of chaff at £8 per ton, but he found that the defendant would not allow him to touch the stack. Defendant informed him that he (plaintiff) had agreed to plough the land instead ot lcavirg it in stubble, but he denied that such was the arrangement. Defendant then said that he would lock the gates and would defy plaintiff to take the stack. The first intimation hj« received that he was supposed to be liable for the whole of the fencing was the receipt of the summons for the counter-claim.

The plaintiff was cross-examined at length by Mr Hackett, and in answer to Counsel he stated that the night previous to the fire he had slept at Otahuhu. He wrnt there to make arrangements for the hiring ot a boring plant for his property. He retired to bed at 10.30 p.m. in the evening, sleeping on a sofa in the kitchen at his brother-in law's residence. He arrived back in Papakura the folowing morning by tha 8.50 a.m. train, and was informed by Constable Jamea that the stack had been burnt. He had never told anyone that he was going to Otahuhu to see his mother, who was ill. He wa3 of the opinion that the stack had been burnt down deliberately. At this stage of the proceedings the case was adjourned to come on again at a special sitting of the Papakura Court, to be held on Monday, th-3 15th inst. M