SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1391, 27 July 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day.

(Before his Honor Sir George A. Arney, Xt, Chief Justice, and a special jury, consisting of Messrs H. S. Eudock, Joseph Bennett. W. Buchanan, W. C Bill, Barton Ireland, M. .M. Taylor, Frederick D. Yonge, Jeremiah Casey, A. Saunders. James Baber, Gsbnel Lewis, Edward Bartley ;

foreman, William Crush Daldy.)

His Honor took his seat at ten o'clock

ACTION FOR TRESPASS AND VAT UK OF LOOS. C. A Harris, sen., v. J. P. Macfarlane. Mr Eees appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hesketh for defendant.

In this action plaintiff sought to recover for trespass and loss of timber at Whsngapon between the months of December, 1872, and June 1873. Damages were laid at £1000. Mr Rees opened the case, and stated that the present action was brought for the recovery of damages done to plaintiffs property at Hikutawawa by defendant, in cutting down and carrying away timber, lighting fires, and otherwise injuring his property; also that the defendant had dammed up the Waitakuri stream, in consequence of which he (the plaintiff) had lost a number of logs which, had been swept away aDdentirely lost, and further that defendant had cut a canal through plaintiffs property, whereby he had lost at least logs worth in value to £296. Defendant had paid Is into Court as Pti equivalent to plaintiffs loss, which Mr J?ePc h^racterisfd as satire, and in defence di (.tiflant urged that he was fully justified in making use of the creek as a means of transit. When plaintiff expostulated with defendant en his proceedings he was simply insulted and could not get a courteous answer. The defendant appeared to be a man who set aside the verdicts of juries, and defied all law and justice, and if such defiance was permitted, settlers will have in future to take up arms and fight for their rights. The question for the jury to consider the amount of damage to which the plaintiff is entitled. He would ask not only for the value of the logs, but for a moderate interest on the lops of the money which those logs would have produced. Mr. Christopher A. Harris, senior, deposed that he was the owner of certain lands and property at Whangapoua, and he applied for an injunction in a former suit to restrain the defendant, Mr. J S. Macfarlane from trespassing upon his lands floating timber through his land on the Waitewri Creek, which was granted. He also, in January of 1873, applied for a provisional injunction at the Supreme Court, which was refused until the facts had been tried before a special jury. The facts were then tried, and he obtained an injunction. He had lost a great deal of timber through the act of defendant, and assessed the value of 74 logs at £4 each, amounting to £296. which was a fair and reasonable price. He had made an offer to Mr J. S. Macfarlane, for .\ settlement to which he would not agree, hence this action.

Cross-examined by Mr Hesketh : Plaintiff believed that if he could have got a civil answer to his letter from Mr Macfarlane. litigation might have been avoided ; but he never could get that. He had not issued the writs in one day aca'nst the defendant.

To Mr Rees : He had made a distinct offer tbroush his solicitor for a settlement of every thing with defendant in 1872. Mr J.S. Macfarlane had ta"ken and kept violent possession of his (plaintiff's) property. Mr Gillies had urged him to bring an action while the matter of settlement was pending1, and hopes had been held cut to him that some amicable arrangement would be made; but hope as well hib lawyer "told a flattering tale." Although he sued for £1.000 damages nominally, the action was essentially for the determination of right. He had done his utmost to conciliate matters.

William Wrijrht, manager for plaintiff at Whanpapoa mill, deposed that he remembered June, 1873. He was on the creek about the middle of the month, and saw defendant's workmen taking plaintiff's loss. He warned them that they were trespassing, but they would not desist. The averasrp value of a log was £4 5s and £4 10? at the mill. He was aware that a provisional injunction was granted, but could not mention the date; it was, he thought, the 16th June. He took the injunction to John Macfarlane, but_ it was ineffective. The trespass still continued, and tbe logs still rolled away. He warned John Mac farlane about stopping up the river, and told him the responsibility would rest with him, but tbe trespass still continued, and the logs still rolled away. They were taken through tbe canal to Mr J. S. Macfarlane's mill. A letter was received from W. Cardno, manager to tbe sawmill, to the effect that some of the plaintiff's logs were at the mill, and that plaintiff must remove them without delay. There were eighty-eight logs missing by June 20th but some of them were returned. His Worship remarked that the number of I logs had been specified, bo that the question ' of number might not be furfchor pursued.