DAMAGE BY FIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 121, 22 May 1909, Page 5

DAMAGE BY FIRE.

'THE VALUE OF A FLAX CROP. After the "Star" went to press yesterday the hearing of the case in which Charles James .' Collins .'is i suing Eliza Jane Geraghty and Robert Honald for £200 damages alleged to be caused by a fire, was continued. The plaintiff was further examined as to the extent of a patch of thick, flax* and his estimates varied from 60 acres at 25 tons to the acre to 20 acres at 20 tons to the acre. If witnesses swore that on the whole of the rest of his land there was no milling flax, and -that the western portion of the thick patcU was too wet to mill they would be swearing falsely. Mr Richmond: How much in any one year did you cut off the 300 acres burnt? Witness: Two years before the fir e I cut 480 tons. Mr Richmond: Where did you sell it? Witness: To McEvven's. That was in 1905* Mr Richmond:' That -was the only flax you ever took off the land ? Witness: Yes. Witness said if Ronald and a man with him swore that they did not light a fire that day, he was prepared to swear that he saw Ronald light three or four fire 3 that same day. Annie Collins, wife of the plaintiff, said she had known the defendant for some time. Defendant told her that she intended to clenr the section on which the fire took place, grass it, put cows on it, and build a house there for Mr. Ronald and her two little sons to live in. On th« day of the fire she saw Ronald making up small fires in the morning. Witness then proceeded to give evidence corroborating that of the. pJaintiff as to the incidents which occurred on the day of the fire. The -fire was put out half-an-hour after midnight. Cross-examined by Mr. Richmond: She would swear that live stock was taken on the section both before and after a crop of oats had been pat m and several months before Mr. Geraghty left Te Puke. Martyn Hamlin Hyburn, farmer, Te Kuiti, estimated the total loss at £1860. Mr Richmond cross-examined. Witness said if other expert witnesses said there was not more than 100 tons of flax on the burnt area they were mistaken. He based his estimate on what he saw after the fire, although he knew the area before. He could not say he had walked across it. He could tell the thickness of the crop after it had been burnt by the appearance of the roots. He denied that the western portion of the thick area was so wet as to be unfit to work. He would swear there was quite five tons of flax to the acre on the burnt area, whether the owner of a neighbouring area said there was not one ton per acre or not. Good flax crops grew on good land. He called peat land good land. The burnt area, without the flax, was worth about £4. an acre. The value of good, rich land per acre at Te Puke was £10 to £12 per acre. This peat land was a swamp. The time it took to consolidate it would depend on the treatment it received. Evidence was also given by S. Mutton and H. F. Collins. The court then adjourned till to-day. On resuming, further evidence was called for the plaintiff, and a great deal of conflicting testimony as to the valueo{ the flax crop was given." In opening for the defence, Mr Richmond said lie proposed to show that defendant did not own the section in which Ronald lived, that Ronald was not de- : fondant's agent, that Ronald did not light the fire, and that the fire was, as a matter of fact, lighted by a man named Macno ley. He submitted there was bo cvi- ' denco of responsibility. Eliza Jane Geraghty said she had ' nover paid anything to Ronald, nor had ' she ever given him any instructions as to the management of her property. Be- '' fore she left Te Puke the only "instruc- ' tion" she gave to Ronald was a "request" that he would not go lighting fires on the ' section. The object of lighting a fire three weekfl before the one which did dam- i age was to clear some vegetation which ' had straggled over the boundary, so that should a fire occur Inter it would .not ' spread on to plaintiff's property. That f was the only fire she lit, and she had . never given authority to anyone to light ! any other fires. Cross-examined by Mr Reed: It was : after the fire the millhands turned out ' to that she told Ronald not to go on to a the property or light fires there. She did V not know whether she told Ronald not ? to light fires before she went to Auckland. She ceased to own or have any in- a terest in the section Ronald lived on when she married again. Ronald was on un- ' friendly Wms with her. Her children * resided with Ronald. " Mr Reed: Has not Ronald sold cattle F for you nt the Te Puke saleyards since n you left? ' a Witness: Not thnt I know of. Mr Rppcl: I want you to be careful, a Mrs fleraghty. Do you swear that? s Witness: My son-in-law sold some for P mp. * Mr Roed: Where did they come from? ° Witness; Fron Ronald's section. r Mr Reed: Then you had cattle of your own, then ? 1 Witness; Yes. w (Proceeding.) t]