SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1816, 17 October 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, October 16. (Before His Honour Mi- Justice Richmond.) Tuuock v Kennedy. From the New Zealand Times. "This was an action brought to recover damages for the destruction of a line of willow trees planted upon the plaintiff's 'and, caused by a fire which commenced on the defendant's property The plaintiff alleged that about thirteen chains of the plantation had been destroyed through the fire which was lighted by the defendant. The damages were set down at £216.

Mr W. T. L. Travers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Izard for defendant.

I" Lawrence. Tullook, a settler in the Wairarapa, the plaintiff, in the suit, stated that he had en the oth Mav last a plantation of willows, which had been planted for eight years past. The trees were twelve feet high, were a shelter from the wind, and in addition the were a protection to thebank of the drain. Onreturninghome on the evening of the day in question, he 1 found the willows burning, and the'plantation for a' distance of thirteen chains, had been destroyed. The tire originated on the defendant's section which adjoined witness' property. Some time after the occurrence, defeudant told witness that he had been unable to extinguish tho fire. Defendant promised to have the damage assessed and leave tto matter to arbitration, but this he had not done.

Thomas Tullock, son of the plaintiff gave evidence with a view to prove that the defendant lit the fire in the flax on his land.

Charles Harris, a farmer, was called to provo the value of the willows destroyed, which he estimated as being worth £5 per chain. As a shelter for stock, he considered that part which was burnt was worth £2O a year. Andrew Considine gave evidence which was almost corroborative of that of the former witness, Witness assessed the damage which was occasioned at £165.

James Donovan, a grazier at Featherston, was called to estimate the damage which was occasioned, but he was unable to place any estimate on the matter,

David Barrett, gardener, near Greytown, estimated the value of the trees which were destroyed at £6O, This concluded the plaintiff's case. Thomas Kennedy, tho defendant in the present action, stated that on the afternoou of May 5 last he was engaged in burning flax on his land and lighted the fires himself. The wind was blowing away from both McMaster's and Tullock's property. Witness remained at tbt fires from. 1 p.m, till 4 p,m., at which time only one small fire was burning at a remote point from Tullock's property, but the fire could not have communicated with the plaintiff's willows. There, was a fire upon Mr McMaster's land'on the after., noon of the oth May,

John Kussell stated that he had examined the plaintiff's -ground. The willows were burnt above tbe ground, but the roots were alive. The plantation could not prove a shelter, as tbe prevailing winds invariably blew parallel with' the trees. He would not estimate the damage beyond £5.

Other evidence was' called to show that- little or no daaage had been occasioned,

His.honour gave judgment for the plaintiff with £ls damages, and costs on a lower scale.

BUCHANAN V. NGATEUItE, An action brought by the plaintiff to recover £IOO dainayes, occasioned by the defendant entering upon the plaintiff's land at Wairarapa, and nloughiriii it up. Mrlzird for the plaintiff, Mr Chapman fur the defendant. The following evidence was fciken : James Cooper deposed that he was a sheop farmer, and was present when the defendant and other natives signed tne lease of the block of land referred to in the aotion to the plaintiff, and saw them sign it on 15th July, 1884. Witness proved that he subsequently visited the blook, and In a paddock he Baw a young native named Rehobohnm, and an European, who were ploughing, and who referred witness to the defendant, Rehoboham said that the lessors had stolen the land, and he did not intend to give it up. as he had held it for twenty years; About four acres had been ploughed up, and the damage thereby occasioned amounted to about 30i per acre,

W„ Buchanan. MH.R,, the plaintiff, and lessor of the land in question, deposed that he had been in possession of the block of land for the past eighteen month*, and recently he acquired a new lease from the Maoris, He had never authorised the Maoris to plough the land, which was divided into paddocks, and stocked with oattle and sheep, The

defendant had forcibly prevented witness from iweeninif wi-h the fencing r.f the imviiculnr paddock in question, Witness eatiuinted his damages at £l5O. No witnesses were called for the defence, tho native witnesses having returned to the Wairarapa without fying their intention, Mr Chapman, for the defence submitted that even if damage hud been occasioned by the pinching, &c, it was so alighi that nominal damages would meet the case, But irrespective altogether of this, the plaintiff had admitted that he never had had possession of the paddock in question, and it had not been shown that any trespass on any other portion of the block had been attempted. His Honor gave judgement for plaintiff with £lO damngea, verdict to carry costs, leave being given to defendant to apply' to set aside the judgment on a technical point, that phvntiff never obtained|actual possession of the paddock in question. The injunction to be continued.