A BUSH FIRE CASE.

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED

At the Mastertou Magistrate's Court, yesterday afternoon, before Mr W. P. James, S.M., Charles Forsberg sued Lars Andersen Scliow for £25 4s, for damages caused by a bush fire, alleged to have spread from defendant's to plaintiff's property. Mr D. K. Logan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. L. Holhngs for defendant. Mr Logan stated that the damage was caused by the fire burning plaintiffs' grass on or about March Ist, it having spread from defendant's property, where loggmg-up had been in progress for some days. Plaintiff aud defe'udaut were always ou good terms. Plaiutiff, ou accouut of the danger to his property, had asked defendant to cease burning, aud he promised to do so, as he had nearly compbted the work. Iv the course of the fiuishingoff. the wind rose, and the fire spread, aud caused the damage. After the fire occurred plaintiff had two independent farmers make a valuation of the loss sustaiLed by him. Charles Forsberg. plaintiff, a farmer, of Mauriceville, who owned sections 13 aud 14 in the district, said that the fire had burnt grass and rough feed ou the property. The total area of his sectious was 170 acres, aud they carried about two sheep to the acre. Had to sell eighty wethers in consequence of the fire. The price was then 10s. By Mr Holliugs : Had it not been for the'fire he would not have sold the wethers yet. (Witness then admitted that he sold the wethers before the fire). To His Worship: The property is not as green now as it was before the fire was over it.

Re-exauiiued by Mr Holliugs: Had neither bought nor sold any stocK since tho fire. By Mr Logan: Had the fire not occurred, the stock would have been iv better condition than at present. Albert Forsberg, son of the plaintiff, and an employee on the farm, stated that fires were around the property in December. By the end of February these were all out, with the exception of those which were kept going. Mr Schow was logging-up at this time. On Saturday morning, February 29th, witness asked defendant to cease burning, as witness's father was afraid of the flames spreading to his property. Defendant replied that he only had another day in which to finish. He gave evidence as to the spreading of the fire.

Further evidence was given for the plaintiff by Frederick Newman, plaintiff's adopted son, E. Peterson and William Neilsou, farmers of Mauriceville.

Mr Hollings, for the defence, submitted that defendant was not liable, for several reasons. There was no evidence to phow that defendant lighted a fire on his property, and that it spread to plaintiff's. If he did light the fire and keep it going, it must be remembered that there were fires all over the district at the same time, arcl plaintiff's fire might have started from any of these. It was a singular thing that none of the witnesses for the plaintiff had seen defendant light the fire, and it had to be proved that he did so. It was also strange that the paddock between plaintiff's and defendant's properties was untouched by the fire. Counsel contended that defendant was not liable unless it was proved lie had lighted the fire, and differed from His Worship, that a person was liable for assisting the spread of a fire. It was no doubt uufortuuate for all parties that the fires were started at all, and his client was amoug those who hud suffered. Mr Holliugs concluded that the law regarding bush fires was generally iv an unsatisfactory state. Defeudaut, in the course of his evidence, said the fire had not been lighted by him; it had come ou to his property from Mr Westou's. Thomas A. Westou, farmer of Mauriceville, said that bush fires were raging in the district ap till March Ist. He knew plaintiff's property well. He saw it about a fortnight after the fire, and considered that the fire had improved it. His own property had been improved by about £1 an acre through the fires.

Lars Larsen, farmer, said he remembered the fires about Marc!) Ist. A fire broke out from Wesfcon's bush and spread over witness's property, destroying his house. John Thomas Smart, farmer, of Mauriceville, also gave evidence concerning the fires breaking out about March Ist. He- thought plaintiff's property had benefitted by the fire on it. He'remembered plaintiff's selling 80 sheep prior to the fire taking place. Peter Mortensen, farmer, of Mauriceville, gave similar evidence.

The Magistrate thought it was another of those cases which could very well have been settled out of Court. It was quite evident that bush fires were raging all round the property concerned-at the time in question. It was just possible that the fire on plaintiff's property had come from defendant's land, or that it had been caused from the general bush fires thac broke out. There was an element of doubt about the whole thing. He did not think, from the evidence, that the damage to plaintiff's property by the fire was as great as made out in the claim. Plaintiff would be nonsuited; each party to" pay its own costs.