BURNING LOGS IN DUMP

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28975, 17 August 1959, Page 9

BURNING LOGS IN DUMP

Council Claims Damages The Waimairi County Council won a claim in the Magistrate’s Court against Frank Henry Berland, a contractor, for damages and trespass in dumping smouldering logs in the council’s rubbish pit in Sawyers Arms road on October 30 last year. The logs caused a fire which broke out on several occasions on that and the next few days. Evidence was given that a “very serious fire’’ broke out on the day after the logs were dumped. Units from the Central fire station and the Waimairi council tender, were called, and trucks and earth-moving equipment, and a number of men, some working throughout the day, were necessary to bring the fire under control.

Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., was on the bench.

The plaintiff was represented by Mr J. G. Hutchison, and Mr A. D. Holland appeared for the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed £l3O 9s 8d for damages and trespass against the defendant, or alternatively £l3O 9s 8d damages, for breach of statutory duty. The case was adjourned for proof of the amount claimed to be made by the plaintiff. The statement alleged that the defendant wrongfully deposited several tree stumps in the pit, that one or more of the stumps were on fire or smouldering, and that one or more of these caused the fire in the pit. Evidence was given by Alfred James Phillips, caretaker of the pit, that he told the defendant he would have to get permission from the council to dump logs in the pit. He returned later accompanied by another truck and dumped the logs. The witness was told that permission had been given to dump them. Four loads were dumped by each truck during the day. A fire broke out in a large log dumped by the defendant after one of the trips, but was put out and later another fire broke out and was extinguished with the help of a council truck driver in the pit at the time. The fire broke out again later in the day and the fire tender had to be called, and, although the fire was brought under control again it broke out again the next day. “The pit was in flames and it took the whole day to put it out,” he said. It broke>«ut again on the Monday morning, and altogether 700 yards of sand were carted to try to smother it.

Permission Not Given Alan Clifford Thompson, assistant county engineer, said the defendant was not granted permission to dump the logs. The council had declared a closed fire season from October 1. Mr Holland submitted there was a conflict' of evidence as to whether or not the caretaker had given permission to dump the logs. The trucks had carried out the dumping for several trips during the day without protest from the caretaker, and whether or not the caretaker was entitled to grant permission the defendant could not be held responsible if permission was given by the custodian of the pit when not entitled to. The pit had been set on fire by whoever had set fire to the stumps, but there was no proof that the defendant had lit the fire.

The defendant claimed he had gone to the council offices on the way to the pit but the engineer was not present so he continued on to the pit. He had been granted permission by the caretaker, he said.

The Magistrate said the defendant had been a “completely unconvincing” witness and he was unimpressed by his inability to recollect events on the day in question. “I am quite satisfied that no permission had been given to dump the logs by the caretaker or any other person, and that the stumps dumped by the defendant caused the fire,” he said. The defendant must have or should have known the damage which could have arisen from dumping the logs. It was impossible for any reasonably careful man not to have known that they were smouldering at the time, the Magistrate said.