WAIKATO DISTRICT COURT. Held at the R M Court, Hamilton. Before V. D. Fenton, Esq., District Judge. Wednesday, 19th January, 1876. {Continued from our last.)

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 573, 22 January 1876, Page 2

WAIKATO DISTRICT COURT. Held at the R M Court, Hamilton. Before Y. D. Fenton, Esq., District Judge. Wednesday, 19th January, 1876. {Continued from our last.)

X MoV*ioh T Evifcy McLian.— Thii w M A case in which plaintiff claimed damagos to tbe •mount of £60, caused by the unskilful management of a fire by tho defendant* servant. The caso had been partially gone iuto beforo the late Judgo fitckhaui, and was adjourned. Mr Madden appeared ior tho plaintiff, and Mr Hay for the defendant. Mr Madden said he bad rooeived a notice that £U damages and £0 4s costs had boen paid into Court. TJiis he considered an admission of defendant's liability. H« would theroforo only call evidenco as to tno amount of damage dono. The evidence of Mr Oloments, of Cambridge, which was h«ord before Judge Beoktmm vai then read. That witness had estimated the area of damage done by the fire to extend over tkroe acres, the ti tree on which ho valued at £15 per acre. The total damage done he would ostimate at £50. Major Drummond Hay called, deposed that ho knew the land in question. Had been asked by the plaintiff to estimate the duoiago done. He would oonsider the damage done to the ti tree fit for fonoing at about £45, and further damage at £5. Witness considered this a fair and equitable raluation. _ "Would estiuiat* the area of h-treo destroy^ at three acres, ralue £15 per acre. The plaintiff and witness's own yurrant was with him when he went orer the ground. To Mr Hay— l could not say the value of the whole section n I had nerer been orer it before I win only employed to value tho timber and usiorely walked through the ground. All the tit*oe I saw was on land asserted by plaintiff to be his. His Honor— Were the treei growing t Witness — I'hoy were your Honor — before they were burnt. After they ware burnt they were useless except for immediate uae, to which plaintiff did not wish to put them. His Honor — If the ti-tre* had been used tho same work what value would it havo been P vv ltiiesa— Woll, I can't exactly say. It would hare blackened your clothes pretty well at any rate. His Honor— What was the thickness of tbe titret, as thick as your thumb ? Witness— Oh dear yes, a very much bigger thumb (Laughter) Benjamin Heaslip, a sottler at Cambridge, gave evidence siinilur in effect to last witnen. He had examined tin ground in company with Mr Clements, and estimated that fully three acres of hcary manuka had bean destroyed. H« considered £15 per acre to be under the value of tho ti-tree. He know of one party in Oambridgo who had lately offured £20 per acre for similar ti-trt'o. Ti-tre« winding such as that destroyed ci>uld not be got under £16 por acre. Could not say how ninny hundreds of bundles of manuka theie were cut. Did not know whtro tiro comnioiiced. Tho plaintiff Mr McVeagh, was next called, and said he hud lately bought some similar titree for £12 per acre, but valued his at £15 a he did nut wish to dnpose of it at that timt. Considered he lost £15 per acre by tho fire. He had demanded that amount from defendant who had refused to pay anything whatever. This waa plaintiff's case. For the defence, Mr Hay called -- Medhurst, a serraut of defendant, who ■tated that tho damage d^no by the fire extended over barely three-quarters of an acre. He had holped to measure it by the ohain. Would owear thore was not more than throe-quarters of an acre damaged. Considering the position tho land was in behoved the whole was not worth more than £0 or £7. The land was wet a d bogfjy> *'>d S| "no of it could uot bo got at at all. The lire did no harm to the land. Had seun some buuriles of manuka lying oh the ground but they were dead and useless, and there were no Htakes amongst them. They wore only fit for 11 re wood. Could not nay the number lor curtain, but should think there were about 30 bundles. Wan Hunt by Mr McLean to settle th<* matter by arbitration, but Mr MoVeugh uuid ho would do no suon thing. By Mr Madden — 1 have boon in New Zealand about fifteen 'nonths. There were no manuka trees where I cauio from. I was not many months hero before the fire took pluco. By the Court — The manuka would have been just m good if u had lieon used aftor the fire. George Wutt corroborated last witness'a statement as to tho are* destroyed and estimated the loss at about £8. Me was of opinion the manuka would be much boftor for fencing purposes after the fire, as it would be more lithe and would present less surface to the wind. The stakes would also bo improved by the sup being dri.-d up. Witness would swear it wai not worth £15 per aore before it was burnt. Tho damage did not exceed £8. J Cooper Burgis, settler near Cambridge, also deponed that the area of fencing ti-troo burnt did not exceed three-quarters of an ajre, which was certainly not worth raoro than £5 per acr». Chapman tiwen also a Cambridge settlor, stated thera wad not more than three-quarters of an acre damaged. Thought the value to be about £7 10a. It was good ti-troo. '1 bought £16 per acre fair valuation. Believed the fire had done a deal ol good to the laud, CouH not say how many bundles wore cut. Bj Mr Hay — Thero may have been sixty bundles. Ti-treo is worth about lid a bundle. Every McLean was called but bis evidence was of httlo import. He said he had done all he could to settle the matter by arbitration. By Mr Madden— When first spokon to by Mr McVeagh, I sutd I was not liable for what my servant had done. I have been told so since by M r Joy. His Honor -" Joy told a flattering talo." Mr McLean— l think I have done Mr Me Vengh a sorviep. Hie Honor — And ho shews how ungrateful he is for it. His Honor laid he thought the question might be settled by arbitration ; he would retire for fire minutes to let the purties consult. As no conclusion had been arrived at during his absence he proceeded to give judgment. He said tho oridenoe as to the area was very conflicting. He, however, would givo tho preferonce to tho dufundaat. As to tho value per acre, that also was conflicting. He would sot it down at £16. The evidenco respecting tho number of bundles cut was in a complete state of muddle, he should like some further oridooco ob to the price per bundle and number of bundles out. Benjamin HeaslL}* was re-called and stated that he rind two men had boon employed one day cutting ti-tree and each had cut fifty bundles, besides a number of itakos. He valued it at 3d per bundle. His Honor after some calculations gave judgment for £13 5s 3d, and oosts £9 17s, which was to bo defrayed b> tho plaintiff, the amount of judgment being leas than that paid iuto Court. Anderson t Walkir— This waa an aotion to recover £45 2d 8d balance duo on a contract for tbo orection of the Presbyterian parsonage at Catnbrid 0, and £22 Us 9d for extra work and labor done. Mr Whitaker appeared for defendant; Mr Madden for plaintiff. The defence sot up was " never was indebted." Mr Anderson was first called and said the work had not been dono in a workmanlike man* ner. He enumerated nine items in which tho work had either not been dono at all or had been unskilfully done. He oould hare found -other faults if necersaiy, but he thought those suffioiant to show tho contract had not been carried out according to specifications. Witness would s«ear he never arrived at the conclusion net to past the work. Was not aware Mr Smith had entered the building and takvn possenion ; or that he had possession of tho key for some time. Had the work been properly dono, plaintiff would have boen paid. At this atage the Court adjourned till 7-30 p m. (To be continued).