LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 21 November 1924, Page 3

LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CLAIM FOR ROYALTY ON FIRESVjOOD, At tUie Levin Magistrate's Court on Thursday morning, Samuel Rolston proceeded against Frederick Adin for the sum of £lO, money alleged to be owing fqr firewood taken under agreement- fnQin plaintiffs farm on the Levin-Foxton Road. Mr C. Blenkhorn appeared for plaintiff and Mr P. L. Rollings (Foxton) lor the defence. Samuel liolston evidence Mat he had had an arrangement with defendant about firewood defendant agreeing to pay £2O for the right to cut the. 'Whole of tlhe firewood off a certain paddock. It was-agreed that defendant should pay £5 when he had got ten cords of wood and a further £5 for each ten- cords, up to purcha.se price of £2O. Roughly there were about 100 cords of wood in the paa'dock'. Defendant had taken 20 cords of wood off the paddock and then abandoned the work, paying nothing. Plaintiff had spoken to nun , .once wlhen, 13 cords had been carted off and suggested that the £5 owing should be paid, but nothing had.been j done. He had then written to de-J fendan't asking for payment, but had received nothing. Defendant had" told him that he was getting £2 per cord, which was the value Qf the wood on the truck.

Cross-examined, (plaintiff said the arrangement was that defendant should have the whole of fihe wood in the paddock for £2O. It was incorrect that lie had told defendant that he could get wood out with a horse and cart, although tfhis was a,fact as he had seen defendant getting the wood out.in this way. It was not a fact that the land was a bog. He had based his. claim on the admission of defendant that he had.taken 13-cords and QhTde fact that he had seen him cart a lot of wood later.

Mr Hollings stated that* the defence was that the' agreement entered into with plaintiff Was that defendant should have the whole- ol the wood in the paddock for £2O. It was intimated tq him that the nature, of the ground was such that he could get tiie wood out by means of a horse and cart. When his client came to inspect the ground he found that it was a bog. He had been put to ..considerable expense for plant, labour, etc., and contended that it was plaintiff's statement regarding the. ground wlhi'Ch had induced him to take the wood at more than its. value. The Bench; Had he not inspected the ground before, he. took the paddock? .

CounselrNo, sir; he had had nq opportunity of inspecting. He took the plaintiff's word that the ground was firm.

The Bench; You cannot expect us to believe that. If your client goes into thc witness-box and states tnat, then we must believe either that he was u very bad business man; or else tnat he is a liar. Counsel; 1 would suggest, Your Honour, that you hear my witness before you oome to any conclusion. The Bench; We. are anxious to near him. That is what we want.

Frederick Adin, sworn, stated tnat he had taken the paddock at a price of £2O: When he had taken the paddock he. ttaad gone down with Mr Rpls'tbn to. inspect it, and found it covered with long grass. Mr Rolston had assured him that he could .get a horse and cart all oyer the ground. After the first shower of rain, however, the ground had become impassable and he lhad told plaintiff that the only way of getting the timber out was to lay down a tramway. All lie had got out was 12 cords for which he estimated a fair royalty would be 2s 6d per cord. To Mr Blenkhorn: He had got out only five or six cords before, he knocked off. work on account of tne wet. He had not giyen up the paddock then because he had thought of putting in a. tramway but had found that the. cost would be too great, it was not a fact that his horse was lame and that he had given up the work on that account. Mr Blenkhorn: You state that your horse was not lame. Are youi sure Of this?

Witness; He went lame, certainly, from working in the mud. Counsel: Did you ever offer to pay Mr Rolston anything for the wood you got out? Witness: I offered toj get two cords of wood for him for the tPoroutawhao School, and he could draw the pay for that. Counsel; But you never offered him any money for the wood, although you sold it at £2 per cord. Witness: NO, no money. Summing up the Bench stated thai the case resolved itself intq - one a estimating the amoumlof wood wruen had been taken ou'C Splitting tine difference between the clanns oi tne twqi parties would 'bring the amount to 16 cords. Tlhe delendant had stated that the wood was worth only 2s 6d per cord, but this was rubbish. He had taken the whole of the paddock at 4s. per cqrd, and admitted that he had carted off titiat w.hich was easiest to get. He wquld fix the price at 5s and enter judgment for plaintiff for £5 with costs £1 €>s.