RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, April 3rd. (Before J. U. (Jr.iwfoi-d, t£eq R.ML , and 0. 0Graham. Ksq, J. P.) DEUNKENNKSS AND I>ISOBDERLY. Archibald White was fined ten shillings for bliis offence. DRONKKKNESB AND BESISTING- THE POLICE. William Eaddy was fined twenty shillings, with the alternative of forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for a charge of this kind. CBTTELTY TO ANIMALS. Jobn Anderson uppeared on remand to answer au information charging him with having cruelly ill ÜBed a horse. The evidence of Mr Cuttell, who saw the defendant beat I he animal about the head with a heuvy stick, whs taken, and the defendant was fined 10s, with 16s 6d costs. CIVIL. R. M. Clrland v. A. Spaceman.— Fraud summons. Defendant was ordered to pay £1 a month 5 in default to be committed for one calendar month. Fuiend v. Toomath. — Action to recover £50 for damage caused to plaintiff's property it Karon by the negligence of the servants of the defendant in lighting a fire on the defondant's property and allowing it to spread to the property of his neighbors. Mr Gordon Allan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Quick for the defendant. Mr Allan explained the legal beamings ot the case, and quoted Seymour and Greenwood (30 L.J , Ex. JB9) to show the responsibility of a master for tho actions of his servants. Die defendant might endeavor to show in the present caee that he had instructed his servants to exercise every care, but that did not relieve him from liability. In the case quoted the company endeavored to renounce respon«

sibility for the conduct of a servant who had forcibly ejected the plaintiff from one of their omnibuses without any apparent cause, but it was held nn appeal that the defendants could not relinquish the liability, and the verdict went against them. Mr Allan then culled George Friend, the plaintiff, who stated thut he and the defendant occupied adjoining paddocks at Karori. Wiiness's paddock was six and a half aores in extent, was fenced with a three-rail fence, and had about two acres and a half laid down in grass. There was a dwelling house on the land. On the Ist March witness found his bush in a roaring blaze, and on proceeding to the spot he found that several fires had been lighted in defendant s paddock in the portion near to witness's property. There was no fire beyond Toomath's. The fire came up the gully from Toomnth's, and in- half an hour from the time witness first observed the fire all the bush on witness's property was ablaze and he immediately made exertions to save his horses. The fire lasted five days, during which time witness had to employ a large number of men to extinguish it. The actual amount of money paid to these men waß £9 10a, but though he had stated his totul loss at £50 he estimated t-he damage to his property at considerably over that sum. Mr Quink took exception to the right of the defendant to claim more than the £9 10s actuully expended unlees the speciaj damages were specifically set forth in the declaration. His Worship could not admit the objection to the form of the declaration, but took a note of Mr Quick's objection. Examination continued — The £9 10s wan paid for the services of men who were employed in saving the house from destruction. In making an ostimute of his loss he put down £20 for the grass deetrojed, and £20 for the bush burnt. The grass had always mainrained two horses throughout the winter, and he would now be put to an expense of £20 for fodder and £20 to clear away the debris oi the fire. At un interview with Mr Toomatl] witness naked him when he intended to make good the damage done to the fences round witness's land, and he said that he had already taken steps to repair Mr Baker's fence and that witness's would be repaired at the same time. He said he was always careful to guard against the result of negligence connected with fires ; that he was sorry for what had happened j that he usually looked after the making ol fires himself; but that he was particularly engaged on that evening, and could not do so. Witness offered to accept the £9 10* in full discharge of any claims for damage consequent on the fire ; but as Mr Toomath continually made excuses and seemed disinclined to pay the £9 10i, witness determined to sue him for the full amount of damage. Cross-examined by Mr Quick : Witness until recently held the property on a purchasing clause, when he became the purchaser at £350. It was not true that he neglected the property very much until he became the purchaser. While he held the lease he expended £15 in cutting away dead trees ; and he had improved it so much that up to the time ol the fire there was not a single dead tree stand' ing. There were dead trees or scrub lying near the fence on both sides, but there was none lying on or through the fence. Witness had offered to buy Mr Toomath't land, and in a conversation with hia: witness said that if he accepted the sum witness had offered to his agents for the land it would not be necessary to put up the fence as witness would not require the property divided. When witness complained of the destruction of the native shrubbery, Mt Toomath said, " Yes, I am very sorry it was destroyed, for I would not have lost the bush on my land for £50." It was quite true that if Mr Toomath had consented to sell the property witness would not have presented any claim for the damage done. Every effort was made to keep the fire back during Tuesday and Wednesday— all the men and all the water in Karori could not have put it out— and nothing was omitted to be done that ought to have been done. The grass de stroyed was very dry, but it was sufficient tc maintain two horses, as it always had done since witness had had possession ; it waa very certain that the absence of the grass destroyed would put him to an expense of £20 or £30 foi fodder during the coming winter. Did not be lieve that the fire on witness' land was causec by the dead timber not being cleared within i chain of the fence. From the leaps he savi the fire take afterwards he was in a position v state most positively that the clearing o: the undergrowth within a chain of the fence would have made little if any difference. At a matter of fact all the dead timber, the dangerous material, was on Mr Toomath'f side of the fence; tho timber close to the fence on witness' side was live timber. W. H. Harrison stated th.it on the Ist March he saw the fire just after it had startec on Mr Friend's property. He inline' diatcly assisted Mr Friend to release hii horses, as they were in danger of bein£ caught in a corner of the paddocl exposed to tho fire>. A number of other me assisted to keep back the fire else it must have reached the house and destroyed it. The fire ran along the grass very rapidly, and destroyeH a glen which witness considered a very g real ornament to the place. Had Mr Friend bee»i made aware of the existence of the fire immediately it broke out it might have been stopped, but it l.ad got such a hold before it was discovered, and the wind was so strong ut the time, that it waß then impossible to extinguish it. Witness helped to dam up the creek and wet the grass to prevent the fire running along it. Cross-examined by Mr Quick : It could only be nmutter of opinion as to whether the fire could cross the creek or not. There was every probability that it would do so as the gra^s was very parched, and there was a quantity of dry timber lying about. There were about four or five men and several boys engaged in the attempt to extinguish the fire on tho Saturday nijjht, and by the time they ceased in their exertions there seemed to be no great danger. Did not think the fire on Mr Friend's property was caused by the ignition of the dead timber lying near the fence on hia side, in fact he saw the fire come over on to Mr Friend's property from the tops of the dear) trees that were burning on Toomath's property. Margaret Christy Buid she passed Mr Toomath's paddock on Friday evening and saw Mr Tooraath's son and his servant lud attending a fire that was burning near Mr Friend's fence. Witness told them to be careful or they would do gome mischief and they replied "No fear." When witness was reluming home she saw Mr Toomath standing ill hia garden, but oould nob say whether he waß in a position to see the fire, which afterwards extended to the property of Mr Baker and Mr Friend. John Christy saw the fire fin>t on the Saturday. Ifc was then on Mr Toomath's ground, near Mr Friend's place, on a portion of the ground where there waß a preat deal of rotten wood on both sides of the boundary. The sparks from tho fire were carried away from the house, but had the wind changed it must have been destroyed. The bush burnt, was useful as affording shelter to the horses, aa well as tending to beautify the property. There was also a lot of valuable grass destroyed, although a number of men were endeavoring to prevent the spread of the fire. Witness was on Mr Friend's property fur a day and a-half carrying water. The gruss was absolutely burnt out at the roots ; there was certainly not enough grass in the p iddock now to feed a horse on. Witneeß wu* ol opinion that the fire spread to Mr Friend's property from the low scrub on Mr Toomath's property. Cross-fxamined by Mr Quick : Could not say that the fire was ligLted by any person in Mr Toomath's employ. The grass in Mr Friend's paddock was springing up again in places, but there is nothing like the growth there was previous to the fire. Paul Kingland stated that on the Friday evening he saw several fires burning on Mi*

Tpomath'g property,, one tjear- Mr- FriendV fence blazing; fiercely. Ifc *»as, perfeotly calm ' at the time, but the least, wind' from the spilth* i ward mu*t have sent the fire right into Mr 1 Friend's house. Saw the fire next day at half-past one. o'clock, andit.then.liAd.6uch « hold on Mr Friend's, bush that all. the engines, and water in Wellington could not hive put it out. The bush destroyed was extremely - ornamental, and it was also useful in protect* > ing the grass during the- summer months--1 from the scorching effects of the sun. The 1 bush whs so advantageous in this respect that ■ during the summer there was- always . green grass underneath ,it to feed the horses when the grass in the open was burnt up by the heat of the sun. Mr Friend Had spent a ' great amount of money in improving his pro* perty, and the garden was greatly damaged by men trampling over it in their endeavors 1 to extinguish the fire. " m Horace Baker said he saw Mr Toomath's .Jf son James light, the fire on Friday the 28thFebrnary, and Charles Alexander Baker de--1 poaed t<* hparing a conversation between hia father and Mr Toomath during which MrToo* math stated that if Mr Baker could prove that his- ■ (Toomath's) son light pd the fire he would pay 1 for any damage it h«d caused. Mr E. Baker corroborated the evidence already taken. Mr Quick admitted that a fire was lit 6n Mr--1 Toomiith's property, and that it was, extinguished by the man who lighted ifc, who left it under the impression that it was thoroughly put out. In the morning there was no sign of the fire, but in tho afternoon when they returned from town they found a fire upon Mr Toomath's land and Mr Friend's. He wauld prove in evidence that there was no negligence on Mr Toomath's p*rt, though ' it. would nut be denied that, his servant lit the* 1 fire. He wasawnre thufcin England the slightest evidence in regard to the lighting of fireswas accepted a* pritna facie evidence of neg- ' ligenee, and particularly was this the case in ' regard to railway companies. In this case, i however, he would show tint they bad i adopted all measures of prudence which they I could reasonably have been expected to adopt; It would also be shown that ut an interview • between Mr Friend and M.V Tbotnttth subsequent to the fire it was agreed that if Mr • Toomath would erect the fence there would 1 be an end to the rnitter. Mr To >math had i erected the fence, but the real grievance with Mr Friend wis that Mr Toomath had refused to sell the property to' him. Mr Quick then railed , Alfred Bartlett, lately in the employ of Mr ■ Toomath, who said that he lit the fire on Mr Toomath's property near Mr Friend's. He watched the fire for several hours during the evening and after putting water on it he left it in the belief that it was out. He passed > the place in the morning and thorq was no fire there then, but when he returned from ' town in the afternoon with Mr Toamath he ' saw a great blaze of fire between Toomath's • and Friend's. I Cross-examined by Mr Allan : Remembered I saying to Mr Buker thai he did not light a f fire on Mr Toomath's property, but he did not • remember saying that if he did light a fit© ', he didn't care as Mr Toomath would J have to pay. the damage. Stephen Lancaster said he had visited Mr i Friend's place and saw that the fire had dei stroyed some scrub, but there was plenty of » decayed timber lying about from a previous I fire that ran over the ground thirty years > ago. The "scrub destroyed was the second • growth. If Mr Friend's land had belonged » to witness he would have considered that the ' five had done him a great deal of good. There 9 is still some live scrub remaining and some i grass. The grass had never been- sown ; it '■ had been carried by cattle and grown from ' seed blown on to the land. His own opinion I of the fire was that it had greatly improved. '' the ground. The oustom amongst the neigh- - bors in the district was to assist eaoh other > willingly in case of fire ; he had never known - one settler charge another for damage oooa« t eioned during a fire. Witness was of opinion • that the fire could have been got under if > ordinary anergy had been empleyed on Tues* 5 day. Cross-examined by Mr Allan: Although it 1 was customary to give a helping hand witness f did not do so in this case because he saw that • the wind wus blowing the fire away from the 1 house and there was no danger, tie oonld • not estimate l,he damage Mr Friend had sus« ' tamed by the fire because he placed some ' value upon the scrub whilst he (witness) f placed no valuo upon it whatever. It was un* ' doubtedly an advantage to have the shelter of » the bush for the protection of the grass during ' the summer months, but notwithstanding that » if the land were his he should clear the scrub ' away and make it more productive by sowing grass. If the property had been in the market he should have considered it more valu- • able with the scrub cleared. Mr Reading considered that looking at the i result of the fire from a practical, rather than J a romantic point of view, he should have cont sidered it beneficial rather than otherwise. • He did not consider the burning of the grass 1 caused much damage, beoause it waa self sown » grass ; generally speaking it was considered I beneficial to have the grass burnt off, because > the ground was better for the growth of grass > afterwards. Did not consider the grass burnt ■ was sufficient to maintain two horsos. Wit* i ni'as haJ a piece of bush similar to Mr Friend's, • and he would have been glad if the fire had ■ rnn through it. If it were grassed it could not be grazed upon for three or four months, i «nd then of coarse there would be the coat o 1 labor, grass seed, &0., to take into account, but the grass would be of a much superior growth to that grown under the sorub. — Young considered that the fire could have been stopped on Thursday if any great i exertions had been made. Witness asked Mr Baker if he was not afraid the fire would burn his house down, and he replied that it did not matter if it did, because Mr Toomath would have to pay all the damage. The amount of the damage doae he estimated at nothing beyond the value of a little gras3 in the scrub. Cross-examined by Mr Allan s Heard at Kell's that there was a fire at Friend's, and went to osk if he wanted assistance, but Mr Friend said he had enough hands. , Didn't nay to anybody on Thursday that it would be impossible to put the fire out. The sorub urtiss was not fit to maintain a working horde. Mr Friend paid him 22s for some assistance he had rendered in connection with the fire. This was the whole of the evidenoe, and counsel on both sideß having addressed the bench. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion I hut altnough Mr Toomath was perhaps not morally guilty of negligence he was legally liable. Many of the claims brought forward were of so remote a nature that the Benoh c.mld only take into consideration the actual amount expended by the plaintiff, namely, £9lOh, lor which amount they would give judgment, in addition to an allowance for the ugistment of two horses for sixteen weeks, in» kins; the total amount of the judgment £12 I4i and coats. 1 here wus another case similar in character, in which Mr Baker was plaintiff and. Mr i'ooinuth defendant, but as the other case had occupied the Court until six o'clock in the evening, his Worship adjourned the oase till Monday next, Mr Baker having declined to submit, the case to arbitration. The Cuurt then adjourned.