THE TOKOMARU FIRE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 1014, 16 November 1917, Page 3

THE TOKOMARU FIRE.

VERDICT. FOR PLAINTIFF,

The ae. ion hi, which Samuel Mullins, of Tokomatu, -proceeded against .1. C. Kelly, aEu of 3 okomaru, claiming- £262 12-t 7d, damages ealiscd by a llr<v alleged to hsi.ve spread from defendant As farm, wad continued before, his Honor Mr Justice. Chapman, at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon.

Mr J. P. I tines appeared for plaintiff, and Mr 11. It. Cooper for defendant. THE DEFENCE.

For tin! defence, Mr Cooper stated that defendant admitted that lie At, tires during January, but denied logging up. An necessary'pfocautio!is wore tiiKen to keep the lire well away front the boundary deuce, between plaintiff’* -and defendant’s proper, liio. Evidently a strong wind earned tire fire through to piauitiit s. but counsel contended that, tin) KUWr’s property .had been improved bv the tire, pvtir hj mid deal roved a lot of ■ A-rul/- ami n<j.<k»u> giv.uths., (ii.. hunt being in a very duty condition bidore toe five. Now there was a gootl growth of grass,

and the. land was carrying, the same numbei ol sheep now as previously. Arthur N. Kelly, .-.on ot defendant, Mat ed that, in January last some tires were‘Jit

on their property at Tokomaru, to clear up sonic of their land. Mullins’ land adjoining was covered with fallen limner, which wfia more or less overgrown with scrub and gnu*. There was a. better grow th ot grass now than was lire case last year.

Mo Mi-’ Linear It aus certain that tile tire on their property spread to Mullins’ place. James C. Kelly, tin- defendant-, gave evr deuce that .Muhins’ land was well grassed beionv the tiro, but, there way also,a, heavy growth of scrub’ and noxious weeds. It was in better condition now, and carried a good growth' of grass. Witness .examined tnc fencing, and Mound that a lot that had been claimed for had not been damaged. Evidence was also given by J. Batehelar and It. E. Williams.

In .summing’ up. His Honor said that then was no 'doubt- that plaintiff was entitled to recover. The question . ofcompensation, however, was not always an carry one. ’1 he jury, had to remember that it had, been brought out in evidence that, plaintiffs land was covered to a certain extent with scrub, and other noxious growths, but the principal loss was tUb pasture. Mho cost of renew tug the fencing’, the procuring of .grass ; seed for re-sowing,, and the damage to the wool of plain tiff’s-’ sheep bad .also to bo taken into consideration.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £l4O 12a Id. His Honor gave, judgment accordingly, costs and diyburacanenls to be fixed by' (lie registrar.