THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 6807, 12 January 1886, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

aypiustfjg fpisrvSim SITTINGS* (Before Mr Justice Wflliam* and a CemmOß Jury.) Jones and oTHraa v. Bookland asq ahotheb.-—The plaintiffs sought to recover damages under -thrt* heads tor breaoh of covenant.: Firstly, LSQO damages for failing to v keep in proper repair certain demised Sroperfy, w covenantedj;*jK»on<Uy, LSOO amages owing tp the property being in* properly and negligently ploughed and harrowed ; thirdly, Ji2,000 damages occasioned by dock, thistles, Settles, and other noxious weeds being allowed to grow over the property. Mr F. R. Chapman, with him Mr Fitfor the * plaintiffs ? the AttorneyGeneral, with him Mr.Fraser, for the defendants. Evidence having been given by William Kerr (farmer), John Reid (agent), and Arthur J. Burns (retired farmer), the plaintiffs,' case closed. The Attorney-General in his address to the jury designated the case as a big " tryon. 5 ' The trustees who bad brought the action, however, were not to blame in the matter. The real plaintiff was Mr Frederick Jones. He having complained that Mr I Buckland was not managing the farm w.elli \ the trustees had taken the precaution of sending Messrs James Smith, of Greenfield, farmer, and John Reid, of Dunedin, agent, to examine it. They had drawn up reports, and the only complaints they had made were, that one fence _ needed repairing, a gorse fence needed cutting, and this couch-grass was on the property. Mr Mills, the managiug trustee, had therefore written to the defendant asking him to take immediate steps to get the fences and hedges put in order, adding: "On the subject of the couch-grass 1 shall have the honor to address you later on." Mr Smith, in his report, had stated that be found the buildings in very good repair, the dwelling-house particularly being in an excellent condition. The boundary fences were not in a good state, and the fence round the dwellinghouse required a few posts, while the corse and hawthorn hedges wanted a Tittle doing up ; but the improvements required could be made at a very trifling cost. The whole of the property was in first-class heart, and with the exception of the couchgrass it was in a state in which he wonld like to find it were it his own. "In conclusion," he had written, " I am decidedly

of opinion that Mr Jones has no reason to complain of his property being destroyed by the present tenant." Now, Professor Kirk, head of the Forest Department La New Zealand, in reference to couch-grass, had said: "If I were instructed to select the one most valuable grass as yet introduced into this province (Auekland), my choice would fail upon this." The fact was, that couch, instead of being looked upon as a noxious weed, was considered by competent authorities as a valuable grass. If it was so utterly useless as had been described, how was it that Mrßuckland's 2,4ooacrescarried more than three sheep to the acre all the year round ? This grass, as Professor Kirk said, stood the frost and drought, and it was consequently peculiarly well adapted to the ridgy and dry land of Tumai. Instead of the small farmers who had been called for the plaintiffs, practical men who were in the habit of dealing with large tracts of country would be called for the defence. It must be remembered that the couch-grass had been sown by the late Mr Jones, and certainly if it was to be classified as a noxious weed it Bhould have been so specified in Mr Buckland's lease. When Mr Buckland entered upon the occupation of Tumai it was a perfect wreck, and during eighteen months he had to pay one man alone L6OO to put the buildings in a habitable state. After hearing the evidence of expert farmers who i had visited the property, the jury must [ come to the conclusion that Mr Buckland had done well with the farm, and they must regret very much that Mr Jones's temper should have led him to have taken such an action as this, to harass a tenant who had done better for the estate than Mr Jones would if he had it for 100 years. The following witnesses were called for the defence; —J. C. Buckland (one of the defendants), J. Buchanan, D. Petrie (botanists), M. J. S. Mackenzie, A. D. Bell (station-holders) W. Mill (carpenter), George Hosie, Charles Macgregor, James Ritchie, Thomas Thorburn, William Thorburn, Thomas Henderson, William M'Gill, William Souter, Andrew M'Kerrow, John Coates, John M'Kcnzie, James M'Gill (farmers), John Blair (seedsman). [Left sitting.]