AN INTERESTING CASE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10718, 1 November 1912, Page 6

AN INTERESTING CASE

WHATMAN v. ABRAHAM AND WILLIAMS. \ THE EVfDENCE CONTINUED. c Tho evidence in the case in which j Arthur J 5 . Whatman claimed from Messrs AI >ra h;t t n and. "Willnms, of Masterton, a stun of C'7oo for alleged broach of covenant, was continued in the Supremo (.'curt at Masterton yes- , U'rday, alter the jury had inspected the property nt Abikouka. j Charles 0. Williims, farmer, of ( Ahikoitka, said he leased thirty acres ( of (.he properly in connection with ( which the present case has arisen, at f the same time a* Abraham and Wi!- ; liains took up their leases. Behne the _ latter took possession of the property it \v;is in good order, and the planta- -j tions were in a like condition. Tie had put a batten and harh wire to | prevent rattle from injuring the tree? ( in the liine. The stream was then , in good order, and the hanks were ?iot- broken in. At the present time the stream was wider and muddy and , fho hanks d imaged. The stream had ( heen protected at a certain point by : a fence which in l.f)of> had heen broken down by rattle. Tt remained in this condition until about thre£ months ago. In August, 1006, there were 180 lie,'id of cat tic on the ISS acres. After a time these cattle got very weak because there wis t'o food. They consumed everything they could get, and broke into the bed of the j stream to obtain vegetation there. The cattle l;*id broken down the'stops and had got into the plantations, eating what they could of the trees, and 'breaking down others. The stream liad been cleaned out five yeaiv'ago! at a cost of £3, but nothing had been done since to it. Nothing had been done to protect the banks. Tf nothing was done to the creek it would be difficult to obtain good water for stock, and this was an important essential to dairy farming. Tie had repeatedly spoken to the company's agent in reference to the cattle getting into the plantations and creek. E. Hale, nurseryman, of To Ore Ore, Masterion, deposed that he had seen the plantation at Ahikouka. The trees were, in his opinion, well- . nigh useless for shelter. Witness produced branches of the trees to show the condition in which he found them ivhen he -visited the property. 1 October was a risky month in which to plant trees. He was of opinion that the condition of the. trees was due. to the stoclc having eaten the lower 1 branches. Walter James Feast, farmer, deposed that his property adjoined that of Mr Whatman. He. had a life experience of dairy-farming, and had heen living on his present farm for a period of ten years. His brothers had been leasing a portion of Mr Whatman's property for a time. They

occupied it for a period of five years. Witness knew the water-course, which at that time, was much narrower than at present. There was a better flow of water, and the hanks hart not been trodden down by stock. He considered that the widening of the bed. of the stream would have a bid effect upon the property. He had seen stock within the plantations, hut not of late years. The trees now afforded a fair shelter." They would have afforded a good shelter had they not been eaten by stock. He was of opinion th'.t the property had been damaged by '2s Od per acre for eight years through the injury to the shelter. He thought it would cost £2-1 o to renew the water-course. The total damage to the property was, in his opinion, .-£579. Arthur Keast, farmer, of Taratahi. deposed that ho had leased a portion of Mr Whatman's farm, and hart lived upon it for a period of about five years. When he gave up the property to the defendant company in 1905, the banks of tho water-course were not broken away to anything like the "■extent they woro to-day, and the bed of the stream was higher. When he and his brother were in possession of the property, they used to drag tho centre of the stream to remove obstructions. The stream was now much . wider than when he had the property. This was due, in his opinion, to the outlet not' heing kept clear, and the stock breaking down the soft hanks I ol tho .stream. During witness' occupancy of th'o farm, his stock did very | little damage to the hank of the stream. When ho gave up tho proper- j ty, tho shelter trees were in perfect condition, and were not destroyed hv witness' cows. Since witness had left the property, he had seen cattle flu'' plantations on one or two occasions. Ktlgar L. Hohnwood. a member of j the firm ol James Macintosh and Co., stated that he had an experience of , about twenty-five years iu practical farming in the Wairanpa. Ho had seen tire property of the plaintiff, and found that tho plantations had all been more or loss damaged by cattle. Fourteen chains of it were practically completely destroyed for the purposes of shelter. The land required shelter < for the purposes of successful dairy I fanning, fn his opinion the farm was

most suitable for dairy fanning. It should carry 150 rows, and proper j shelter would add 10s to tho milking j value of each cow. He had seen tho | water-course, and found it i» a very 1 lnd condition. Ho considered it would cost about £260 to put it back into the condition in which it was said to have been originally. He valued tho damage to tho plantation at -€2OB. "William James Welch, farmer, and Chtirman of the Masterton County Council, deposed to having visited Mr Whatman's property a Wit eight vears ago, and again m Septemhot last. On the former occasion he did not observe the water-course, but on the latter he inspected the property carefully. From his last inspection of the water-course, he would s-.iy that it had been trodden in by cattle. He also saw the plantations, and found that they had been damaged by stock. Tie believed that, from a shelter point of view, the plantations were now onfy h-If the value they should be. He. had estimated the eo<t of restoring the water-course and the plantation at CM 70.

H'mrli Morrison, farmer, of Morri- : mi's T">ush, deposed that ho had boon f,>rming'all his life. Tlo had inspected Vv Whatman's property in September |;i•, t, and f mnd th;t the water-courses had been trodden in by cattle. ihis had the effect of making a large ami of the land wot. Hi L; opinion was that the hanks would not have boon trodden in s-> badly lrd tho water-course 1 >oon cleansed. He tour.d several dead trees in tho plantation, ar.d other portions of tho plantation damaged by stock. We estimated the amountI required to rest-ore the watercourse and the plant-vtions at £1(50. Gerald Fitzgerald. engineer, deposod that he had had experience, inua tenvnys and drainages. He described the wa tor-eon r.so on tho property. Ho stated th :t the water-course was supplied from springs and the river. The accurate designation of the flow of water was a stream. He said that , in his opinion the stream was wider now than it once was. It appeared as though the hanks were trampled in by stock. In his opinion about 2000- cubic yards of earth had been trampled into the stream. Had the channel been dragged and cleaned at periods the water-level would be lower and the stream narrower. In his opinion the water in this stream in 1 summer time would not be sufficient for stock. The raising of the bed Tiv the pollution of earth had hul the 1 effect of making the bed of the stream > more suitable for weed growing. 1 The witness then described the mc- ' thod of making the flow of water clear and fit for consumption. Ho • gave the minimum cost of putting the ' stream in order at £-100. This concluded the ease for too I. plaintiff. Mr C. P. Skerrctt then addressed > the jury for the defence, and the ■ Court adjouned till L 0 o'clock this morning.