R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2850, 17 March 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON,-FRIDAY.

(Before S. von Sturmer, R31.)

Karaitiana Korou v Alexr. Burhe.tt, sawmiller. Claim £SO tor damage to property by a fire through which a stack of lny, valued at £24, : fences, potatoes, etc., at Akura were destroyed. Mr Pownall appearedfor the plaintiff and Mr Beard for the defendant, Mr Freeth, clerk to the E.M. acting as interpreter.

The evidence for the plaintiff purported to show that on a recent date the defendant lit a fire, in the bush at Akura, and that this fire spread, hence the action, Tlio' fire, it was fyposcA, was started at 4 p.m. one day, and by 10 a.m. the next, despite the protecting efforts of the Maoris, who amongst other precautions buried many of their goods for safety, it liad destroyed the haystack, etc.

For the defence testimony was given to prove that tlie fire was not lit by Mr Burnett until 16th February, and that then it was only started with the consent of the natives, as a means of burning a space to save tho Maori pah and property and the defendants house from another fire which had previously, on 14th February, been lit by someone else and was a source of greater danger. Mr Burnett in his evidence stated, among other things, that he told the plaintiff, who was going to the Greytown races, that the original fire started by outsiders would burn his haystack, and he replied " Oh, never mind." Afterwards the Maories agreed that he (Burnett) should commence a safety burn if the wind should turn in a direction to make the previously existing fire, which was coming towards their holdings, more dangerous. It did do so, and he, in conjunction with Banganui, one of the occupiers of the pah, took torches and lit a fire for the protection of their joint properties. The defence would not admit, apart from justification, that the fire thus lit had been shown by the evidence to have destroyed the claimant's- effects, but rather that the damage might as reasonably be ascribed to the previously existing fire. In cross-examination, it was elicited that Banganui'Kingi was a shareholder in the Maori property destroyed, and also that, while acting as deputy for the plaintiff in his absence at Greytown, he had consented to the fire being lit by Mr Burnett as the best precautionary measure, and had assisted in lighting it. The Magistrate, therefore, nonsuited the plaintiff without costs.