ORCHARD LOSSES

Evening Star, Issue 22808, 17 November 1937, Page 9

ORCHARD LOSSES

SHELTER TREES LOfPED *

SUCCESSFUL CLAIM AGAINST POWER BOARD ABUSE OF RIGHTS [Pbe United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, November 16. Losses in an orchard as the result of the topping off of a belt of shelter trees by workmen of the Auckland Electric Power Board were involved in a claim for damages by an orchardist against the board in the Magistrate’s Court. The board alleged that the trees constituted a danger to public safety in their contact with a hightension power line bordering the property. The plaintiff, a Dalmatian, Joseph, Borich, of Blockhouse Bay, claimed £230 for damages and £SO for trespass. He was represented by Mr Jenkins, aud Mr Terry defended on behalf of the board. Mr W. R. M’Kean, S.M., presided, Mr Jenkins said the plaintiff had occupied this property for 28 years, and a belt of pine trees surrounding the place had been growing all that time. During the past 20 years he had developed the land as an orchard, and now had 460 fruit trees. On March 8 last, while he was absent, workmen notified his wife that they were going to cut the shelter trees, but not that they were going to top them. It was held that failure to give such notice as required by the regulations constituted trespass. The fruit trees were now exposed to the westerly winds, and plaintiff stood to Jose to some extent. The plaintiff said the trees were reduced in height by about 25ft, and it would take about 10 years for the trees to recover. Some were already showing signs of dying, which meant that they would have to be replaced. The growth of the fruit trees and the crops was being affected, and the plaintiff expected that his annual loss would be a third of his output, representing about 500 cases. “If there is any damage we suggest the claim shows an inflated -or exaggerated measure of the loss which must be the basis of the prosecution,” said Mr Terry, opening the defence. “ Compensation must he paid if loss is proved. The statute requires seven days’ notice to be given in such a case as this, but in view of the plaintiff’s wife consenting to the work being done it is submitted _ that the claim for trespass is negligible. The trees were overhanging the highway—some branches were actually , among the power wires—and they did constitute a public danger.” “The case would never have arisen if the Power Board had taken the steps it is required to take,” said the Magistrate. “ Local authorities have powers which are necessary in the interests of public safety, but it is not expected that they should abuse their rights. In this case the board did something it was not entitled to do, thereby committing trespass. The claim for damages, nowever, is far too high, and I find it difficult to imagine that the plaintiff will lose to the extent which his witnesses indicate.’’ Judgment was entered for plaintiff for damages totalling £l2O, including '£2s for trespass, with costs £lO and witness expenses £4 IBs od.