R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3728, 5 February 1891, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

PAHIATUA—TUESDAY,

(Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.)

A Bushfelling Case, Walker v. Warren.

This was a case in which the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant (the lessee of a portion of the Makakahi Native Reserve) the sum of £25 lis for felling a fencing lino, and illustrates the indifference and carelessness in ascertaining the exact boundary lines of bush sections which obtains among bnshfelling contractors, Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Gould for defendant.

James Walker, the plaintiff, examined: Contracted with defendant to fell boand.uy line according to old Government survey line one chain each side. Everything to be felled, for 45s pei acre. (Jn completion went to defendant for payment, who procrastinated on one pretext and other, and at laat refused to pay on the ground that the correct line had not been followed.

Cross-examined : Had waited nine days for Warren to go over line with hiun. At last on some words between them he brought the present action.

William Farrell, examined : Had been ten years on survey work. Knew the line referred to. Pointed it out to plaintiff who had followed it correctly. Chapman: Had worked on the contract partly for wages and partly as sub contractor. Considered 45s a moderate prico for the bush. Lot of dead trees to be felled.

Cross examined : Was not depending entirely upon result ot present action to get payment for balance of his contract with plaintiff. Joseph Moore: Knew the line, considered the falling worth 35s to 40s. Wra. Dearlove . Was experienced in bush matters, and considered 45s not an outside price for falling fencing line, especially when there were a lot of dead trees standing, as in present case.

This concluded the plaintiff's case. For the defence, Wm. Augustus Warren, defendant: Agreed with plaintiff to fall boundary between tliem for 355. Proposed to engage surveyor to set out the line, each to pay half cost. Plaintiff declined as he knew the line perfectly. Plaintiff had not completed the contract as he had gone off correct line. The present falling was not one chain each side of boundary. The Government plan also gave the line as 70 chains, not 85 as sued for. The bush was very light, and 35s a good price for it. The Witness was cross-examined by Mr Tosswill at some length as to the means employed in finding out where the discrepancies in the lines really were. The defendant had employed Mr Beaufort, an authorised surveyor, to measure the line felled according to the Government boundaries. In one instance had found it only measured 5G links in breadth. Geo. Whitcombe, authorised surveyor, had been employed by defendant to show him correct Government line. Did not go whole length of the line. Cross-examined: Fencing lines and all other bush felled was measured by Survey measurement. Had not been employed to taake a surface measurement oi: any land. Thomas William Warren, Daniel Knight, and Joseph Moore gave similar evidence lo the defendant's. The bush «vas very light and the price a good one. Counsel for defendant here sought to pi't in as an exhibit a tracing from the Survey Department showing the line referred to* Mr Tosswill objected it not being either an original document or an authorised copy. Finally, on the application of Mr Gould, His Worship adjourned Uie case until the moi-niug to allow the defendant tiuie to procure the attendance of Mr Beaufort, who had been subpujued but had not answered to it. Counsel fee of £2 2s was allowed.

Ultimately the proceedings in this case were cancelled. Barnett v Thompson.

Mr Tosswill for plaintiff; Mr Pownall for defendant, —Claim £SO for jbreach of contract to deliver 5000 feet of timber (it Ballance, The plaintiff deposed chat he had entered into an agreement with the defendant in May lust, to deliver timber, to be used in erecting Plaintiff's house at 2s Gd per 100 feet. The loads had arrived fairly regularly until June 13th, when the defendant's dray broke down with a load of Plaintiffs timber which had not been delivered even yet, and was no at in defendant's yard. Had suffered greatly through being obliged to live in a whare, and his wife had contracted a chest complaint aqd had been over a month in the Masterton Hospital. also lost, a winter's Wot'k as he all along expected the timber to be delivered and was waiting to build his house with it. His house, if built, would have been worth 10s per week it yented. Cross-examination Rioted the faot that considerable obstinnoy had been shown on both sides, and the present action had occurred as neither cared to "give in." Mr Pownall made a drastic examination into all the items tor which damages were sought, The proceedings were then cancelled. '