CUTTING DOWN TREES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 224, 22 September 1925, Page 8

CUTTING DOWN TREES.

CLAIM FOR AN INJUNCTION. COUNTER-CLAIM FOR ALLEGED .SLANDER. A claim for an injunction to restrain defendant from wrongfully cutting, removing, and selling ti-tree; for an order that accounts be taken as between plaintiff and defendant, and judgment for such sum as might be found to be due to plaintiff, or in the alternative the sum of £501 damages, was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Alpers. The parties were Thomas Hannan. farmer, Whitianga, Mr. Leary instructed by Earl, Kent, and Massey), and Sydney Tomes Davis, farmer, Whitianga, Mr. Singer instructed by Mr. Bryce Hart. The defendant counter-claimed for £530, damages alleged to have been done through the action of plaintiff, and further damages to the extent of £300 for alleged slander. The statement of claim set out that on Jnuary 18, 1024, it was agreed between the parties that defendant shoula lease a farming property from the plaintiff for seven years at a yearly rental of £100. It was claimed that on divers occasions, between I!>_4 and 1025, defendant wrongfully committed waste by felling, cutting, removing, and selling titree. and that he failed to plough those portions of the property from which he wrongfully cut the trees. The defence was a denial to the committing of waste It was contended that plaintiff wrongfully prevented the defendant from cutting and removing the ti-tree, in consequence of which, defendant had lost the sale of the firewood. As a counter-claim, it was claimed that Hannan had prevented the placing of 200 breeding ewes on the property, or in the alternative had induced a man to break an agreement. It was further alleged that Hannan, on two occasions made slanderous and maliciously false statements about Davis. Mr. Leary contended that according to law defendant could not fell the trees unless he intended to use the property for agricultural purposes. Thomas Hannan, in evidence, recounted the incidents leading up to the agreement for the lease of the land. He stated that defendant was in arrears with his rent, and he gave him eight days to find security. That was not forthcoming and witness took possession of the house. . He found that the ti-tree that had been felled was taken from that part of the property which was not supposed to have been touched. That land was not suitable for ploughing. During the time defendant was on the property a mile and a half of fencing was burnt. To his Honor: Where the ti-tree was heavy it would have to be stumped before the land would become ploughable. He did not think defendant could get 500 tons of ti-tree off the ploughable land. His Honor stated that plaintiff had endeavoured to impress him with the idea that defendant was a public house loafer. He pointed out that the action was one of a lease, and he asked witness if he wished that impression to remain. Witness said he did not think defendant was a public house loafer, but, he added, he did stay a long time at the hotel. His Honor: "We are ail liable to sin. But I am glad you have dispelled the impression I had got. William John Kirk gave evidence of having been employed by defendant to cut the ti-tree on tlie property. Defendant did not abide by the contract and witness ceased work. To Mr. Singer: He did not. cea=e work because of threats made by Hannan. Defendant ordered him to keep off the property, but witness went on when Hannan employed him. (Proceeding.)