SAMILL TRAMWAY DISPUTE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8550, 8 October 1907, Page 6

SAMILL TRAMWAY DISPUTE.

Judgment was given at Wellington, yesterday morning, says the | Post, by Mr Justice Button in the case of James Drysdale v. Alexander Pryde and another, an action brought by one co-owner Of a tramway against the defendants, the other co-owners,• for breach of an agreement relating to the terms on which the said tramway was purchased, and for the destruction of part of the tramway which rendered it unfit for use by the p'ainliff. Both parties were sawmillers at Nireaha,. in the Eketahuna district, ar,d had agreed to purchase and extend a sawmill tramline on equal shares. Part of the extended line passed through a section of land belonging to the defendant Alexander Pryde,- senr. The agreement for the joint use of these lines did not, however, contemplate a period of more than ten years, after which a further "agreement would be required. The purchase and extension were carried out in lfcOO. The operations of carrying timber over the tramway were carried on without dispute until December, 1906. Meanwhile Pryde, senr., had transferred his section to Pryde . junr. In December, 1906, tho defendant, A. Pryde, "junr., wrote to plaintiff purporting to revoke the license for the use of the tramway extension, and in March, 1907, the defendants obstructed and finally tore up the tramway so that it could not be used; they themselves having cut out their bush, and no longer requiring it. The plaintiff therefore claimed damages. The defendants counter-claimed that the tramway should be sold. His Honour held that with regard to damages he must dismiss part of the evidence as vague and unsatisfactory. He therefore allowed £7B for the cost of 39 chains of substituted tramway, and £IOO for other items, in addition to £9 paid into court as costs on the lowest scale. The question of the counter-claim for detefhiination of joint ownership was adjourned sine die.