PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 560, 24 August 1920, Page 2

PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT

SURVEYING DISPUTE,

DAMAGE BY FIRE.

CLAIM AND COUNTER,

Practically Ihe whole of Thursday's sitting of the Magistrate's Court was occupied in hearing the case J. K. Ledger, licensed surveyor, Pukekohe, v. Henry E. R. Wily, farmer, Mauku. The plaintiff claimed MOi 9s, being balance due by the defendant to the. plaintiff for work done and moneys paid by the plaintiff for the defendant as follows: To land transfer survey and subdivision of allotments .96, 97 and part 99 block 12, Drury Survey District, plan, calculation 1 ?, labour, travelling and searching in Auckland, He, i; 54; stamp, '.is; to plan and tracing of road taken and closed, J:tl 6s; 9s. Less >:2O paid, leaving a balance of >:4O 9s.

The defendant counter-claimed £3O for damage done to fences and land belonging to the defendant by a fire lit by the plaintiff in or about December, 1917, without the authority of the defendant, and also £2O for plaintiff's neglect and. incompetence in carrying out the work whereby the defendant was delayed in completing his scheme of sub-division. The total amount counter-claimed was £SO.

Mr. J. K. Ledger stated that he was a licensed surveyor, and had been engaged on his own account for the last seven years in Pukekohe. At the end of December, 1917, he met defendant and was asked to make a land transfer survey of Mr. Wily's property of about 360 acres at the Mauku, and to subdivide it into four sections, and also to put a new road through as a deviation of an old road, the new road to take the place

of the old one. About the same time

he went over the ground with defendant, who showed him the place for the deviation, and he also had a bird's eye view of lots 1 and 2. Defendant took him down to the western stream and showed him that boundary. They then went back to the house, which is close to the falls. Defendant did not show witness the northern boundary, which boundary was a river. Defendant also told witness there was a cut in the creek, put in by an adjoining owner, but he did not show it to him. He asked for a price, and witness saw him at ,<a sale the next day, and gave Mr. Wily a quote for £54 for the land transfer survey. With regard to the deviation, he understood the Franklin County Council would pay for it, so he gave no price for it, but men-

ioned it would be an extra. When

witness gave the price, Mr. Wily said there was no necessity to cut gorse as the ground was clean, excepting a few pieces, but if there was any of it lie could burn it provided he took care of the bush, houses and buildings, so in his estimate he did not allow for any cutting. In the scale of charges provision was made for 3s 3d per chain for cutting gorse, for which he did not charge. Witness commenced the job forthwith, and on one occasion when on his way out to the work he met Mr. Wily, who told him the council would not pay for the tracing of the deviation. Witness then told him that it would be % 6s extra for the tracing of the deviation. He completed the work in February, and forwarded the plan to Mr. Wily. He received a letter from Mr. Wily complaining that the offsets were not correct. He again went out and measured them along the western and . part of northern boundary and found them generally correct. On the western stream boundary the ground was swampy. He did what he could to get the exact measurements. Ten links made no difference in plotting. He measured the acreage in the usual way by a planimeter instrument. This was a result of Mr. Wil.v's complaint. He also got the Survey Department's instrument from the Survey Office, and found a difference of about one, acre in favour of defendant. He sent the plan back to defendant with the alteration, and then received a letter from Mr. Wily. He also received an account as counter-claim for damage done by fires lit for £7O. The plan was subsequently deposited in the Survev Office. Witness was then called

up iii the bullot, and endeavoured to expedite matters, but found the application for the land transfer was not in. He found that it went in on June 16, 1918. In September he was informed that an inspector would inspect the survey as* Mr. Wily had complained the survey was not correct. He received a requisition from the office saying there was apparently an alteration, that part of the creek had been diverted, and that they required more information to enable them to decide where the boundary was. He then wrote to Mr Wily stating he would be on the ground, but owing to the depth of water he would have to defer it until the creeK went down as the pegs were in the water. He went out, and did the work required, and sent the plan back. This resulted in an increase of 1 the area by one and a-half acres. Mr. Ledger explained how he followed the course of the stream. On seeing the original plan he found it was an old magnetic survey. He tent the amended plan to the land registrar and in April, 192u, he received notice that the plan had been approved. When he got notice of the approved plan he 6ent in his account. Previously he received a cheque for £2O. He did not touch the plan, but in the presence of parties from both sides he made a copy of the deposited plan. The price quoted for the work was below the scale of charges, which would have amounted to betftveen £7O or £BO. On the cheapest rate it came to £7O. As regards the low price charged he pointed out that at the time work was slack, and he thought a little work was , better than nothing. He first of ail j quoted £6O, but Mr. Wily beat him i down to £64. j Mr. A. Newton, inspector for Sur- • vey Department, raid he inspected ]

ike survey and found nothing wrong with it at ftll, excepting one point as to whether the island should be iu j the plan at all. He had instructions \ to look into this point and also into the offsets. When he was there in September, 1018, the island was overgrown with »oi.se and fern about 6ft high. Plaintiff could be quite excused for folfcnwitg the creels as the bound ary. No aspersion was cast on a surveyor through the inspector being sent to inspect his work. The creek was a very indefinite one and a swamp nearby was very wet. Mr. Ledger's explanation was quite satisfactory to his mind. Within an inv gular boundary such as Department recognises the use of the planimeter. The chief suryveyor upproved of the plan and it was correct. The examination of plans at the office had to take their turns. He had had previous experience of Mr. Ledger's work, and always found it good. If Mr. Wily wanted to sell he could hav« fold on his old titles. He walked through rough burnt gorse, some of it being, very high. It was about iwo miles round the creek boundary.

Joseph Charles Simmons, licensed surveyor, said he inspected the survey as a surveyor, and agreed with the evidence of the plaintiff and the inspector with regard to the compilation of the offsets. The appearance of the cut could easily have been taken as the natural course of the Witness contended the work had been done with reasonable speed. It was not an uncommon thing for a plan to be held up in the survey office for a year, even when it did not require amendments. Witness worked the cost out on the scale of the Institute of Surveyors' charges, and found the charge should have been £75, exclusive cost of surveying the deviation. Plaintiff's charges were very reasonable.

THE DEFENCE. Henry E. R, L. Wily, defendant, outlined the preliminaries connected with the employ of plaintiff to survey his property for the purpose of subdivision. He explained to> Mr. Ledger that there was an artificial cut made by a neighbour. He told him the real boundary followed the course of the bush. Later on in the day they returned to the house, and witness marked in pencil on a small plan where the artificial cut was. They had dinner, and the price was fixed up. It was not true that Ledger was told to burn the gorse. It was not true that there was no gorse to cut, but he was tola* that there were portions which he could get over. As regards price, Mr. Ledger wanted £6O, and witness offered to give him £SO. Subsequently witness arranged to give him O if the work was completed to his satisfaction by December 25. They had the conversation in the presence of witness' son. As regards the road, it was carefully pointed out to Ledger, and this was included in the £SO. Ledger agreed to complete the survey by December 25. He received plaintiff's plan, and he himself chained the offsets. He measured some and found some short up to two chains. He drew Mr. Ledger's attention to this, and he saw Mr. Ledger down at the Pukekohe saleyards tnd pointed out the offsets to him, and a number of'other defects. Plaintiff agreed to go out on a certain date, but failed to keep his appointment. He went out ja day before, and witness

was not home. Plaintiff went out, made some amendments, but left out some of the offsets and other necessary alterations. Tho first plan was amended by the inclusion of a portion of land (a balloon shape) containing about half an acre. Subse-

quently he received a letter from a firm of Auckland solicitors demanding £6O 9s. He saw Mr. Bamford at his club and he told witness about the matter.. Witness then explained the position and he heard nothing about it after. About May, 1918, he took the plan to the Survey Office, end in June he again called at the Survey Office, and was informed then that an inspector would be sent up. in September the inspector came, and' in December Ledger came, and witLess spent the greater part of a clay with him, and the final adjustments were made. Plaintiff had a desire to complete the survey. He* had sold lot 3 to a returned soldier, but could

not give him a title until the Survey O/fice had approved of the plan. In the meantime he had to finance

the buyer, and had to do so until the title had been transferred, when the Repatriation Department would take - a second mortgage over the property. He considered 18 months' delay had been occasioned, and for the delay he was entitled to damages. Witness said a fire started in December when he was away at Aka Aa. Upon his return he found his wife and housekeeper had articles packed up in case the house would catch fire. Sparks were flying round the house. About 25 acres of gorse had been affected. He intended to burn it off in February and plough the land. It had only been burned in patches, and the tops remained. It would take about three years for the undergrowth to come up to enable him to burn jit off with a steady wind. Three fences had been damaged. Renewal of wires was required for 28 chains of fencing. The wire was affected through the galvanising being burned. The wire would rust and rot off. The wire had a life of between four 1 and five years. His claim was for lossand use of the ground and for damage to the wires.

Alice Gwendoline Madill, lady-help at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Wily, gave evidence as to the proximity of the fire to the house", necessitating the removal of household goods as a safety precaution. David Joseph Nobbs, farmer, at Mauku for thirty years' past, said the wire was burned (samples produced). He thought the 'damaged wire was practically no good should a beast press against it. It would not stand straining. Were it left untouched it might lMt seven or eight years, but he nad known undamaged wire to last 86 years and apparently j being as good as new then, J