FIRE IN FLAX SWAMP

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29250, 7 July 1960, Page 3

FIRE IN FLAX SWAMP

Hearing Of Claim For Damages ' (From Our Own Reporter/ GREYMOUTH. July 6. The hearing of the claim for £1584 damages made by Ronald Nixon, a flaxmiller of Hector, was continued in the Supreme Court at Greymouth today The claim arose from a fire which was allegedly caused by a spark from a railway engine and which destroyed about 24 acres of flax swamp owned by plaintiff, on Seotember 10, 1958 The case is being heard before Mr Justice Richmond and a jury Messrs H. J Smith and J. Cadenhead. of Westport, are appearing for the plaintiff, and the Crown is represented by Mr H A Maitland. Edith Ruth Williscroft, of Fairdown. about two miles from Westport, said that a train had passed her place about 12 noon on September 10 and shortly afterwards she had seen smoke rising from the railway line. At 2.15 p.m., a note had been thrown on to her property from a train travelling from Waimangaroa: The note said that an unattended fire was burning at a certain point Witness had advised the Waimangaroa Post Office. Joseph Allan Mosley, a, miner and a member of the Wafmangaroa fire brigade, said that because the brigade had not had a truck to pull the trailer pump, a delay of three-quarters of an hour had occurred before the pump was taken to the scene of the fire in a private car. The fire was burning alongside the railwav line and had spread towards the swamp. Norman Hector Hall, of Westport, said he' estimated that the burnt area at Nixon's property grew 19 tons of flax to the acre and had a maximum capacity of 30 tons over 13 acres The fire would retard growth from six to seven years. A crop was cut every three years and a half to tour years at Fairdown Plaintiff gave details of the flax land which he owned and said he received £7l a ton tor the fibre. Witness estimated his loss at 440 tons of flax fibre. He said that it would be eight years before another cut could be made. Plaintiff said the railway line had been neglected and constituted a fire hazard. “It was in a filthy mess.” he told the Court. He had twice instructed his solicitor to write to the Railways Department drawing attention to the dangerous condition of the line, said witness He had also suggested that a six foot ditch should be dug. If the soil had been spread it would have given a firebreak of about 20ft The district engineer had agreed to see that the work was done on a 50-50 cost basis Witness said that he had also! seen the Minister and the general-manager of railways.: Both had agreed that the work was essential. However the district engineer had later in-i formed witness that the department would only pay 124 ber cent, of the cost

The hearing will continue today.