MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1931, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

’CASES AT REEFTON. [OUK OWN CORRESPONDENT.] REEFTON, May 8. At the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., Cecil Arthur Hensley was charged with the theft of an overcoat from the premises of the Criterion Hotel. Mr Patterson stated accused was employed at Inangahua Junction. He pleaded guilty to the offence. Accused was one of a party of footballers, and had come under the influence of liquor, and on getting back to his camp was in possession of the overcoat, but did not know how the article came into his charge. He had taken no steps to ascertain as to who was the owner. Some three years ago accused had received injuries to his head, and a small quantity of liquor had full effect. The coat was worn, and not of the value claimed for it in the charge. * • ' Sergeant Fryer, for the police, produced a record which showed that accused had been guilty of previous offences and when questioned had tried to implicate another man. The S.M. stated he could not extend leniency to the accused in view of the sheet produced. He would sentence accused to one month’s impris? onment in .Greymouth gaol. „ Ajr. orger. would be. issued for. the. r^urn, of the overcoat to the owner. . ■

NEIGHBOURS QUARREL. • Fred’ Harwood v. Sydney Provis claim for trespassing and destruction of gate £2. Counter claim by S. Provis for destruction of 20 chains of fencing from a fire lit on Hardwood’s property on December .23, 1927. Mr Morgan for plaintiff and Mr Patterson for defendant. F. Harwood stated that he was lessee of an area of land from J. Dick, and sole occupier. He did not see the gate complained about broken down. It formed part of a fence against the road.

To Mr Patterson: The gate was hanged and fastened with wire. The post was 6ft from Provis’ fence. The boundary of the ground came to a point. He did not know that a piece of ground had been taken for a road reserve. He erected the gate and thought it was on his own ground. H. Campbell, Crown Lands Ranger, stationed, at Reefton, said that he considered the gate was on Harwood’s land, and he got the position from two pegs discovered by witness. iFrom that he (witness) chained off-the position. One of the pegs found he con sidered was the boundary of the road reserve.

Sydney Pro vis, defendant, stated he was the owner of an area of ground of which the title produced, was the deeds of property owned by him, and adjoining land occupied by F. Harwood. On the day of the complaint, he went down to the gate as his cattle Were getting out. He went to repair the fence. While on the way he'rested. On this occasion Mrs Harwood would not permit him to go through . the gate, and started abusing him. He had been suffering from an injuiry received in July 1928, and was still under medical care. He had helped the previous occupier to clear the site. Regarding the counter claim for damage by fire which took place on December 23 last, Harwood agreed to renew the fence destroyed on this date. Harwood started the fire. It was very dry weather, and the fire spread rapidly. When the fire passed, Harwood came over to see if they were burnt out and did not make any promise on that day. About 20 chains of fencing was destroyed. It was a post and rail fence, and worth about £2/10/- per chain new. Witness had no notice served as to intention to burn off at that time. The amount claimed, £3O, is under the loss sustained.

T 6 Mr Morgan: The fire started by Harwood burned the boundary fence. The fire spread all over the place. On the boundary between himself and Harwood, witness had erected about 12 chains of fencing. A fire came through from Loughnan’s about a fortnight previously, and this had only been repaired the day the fire came from Harwood’s. There was only a gentle breeze, and allowed the fire to spread. He allowed defendant plenty of time to put up the fence. S. F. Provis, son of the previous witness stated that in January last, he visited Harwood in company with his brother to see about a cow. They were denied permission to go through the gate. There were no hinges on the 1 gate. Some of the timber in it was owned by his father. The fire complained about started in Harwood’s pig paddock. He saw him start the fire, which spread rapidly, and destroyed 20 chains of fencing.

Fred Harwood stated that for a week beforehand, all the people in the locality were taking advantage of the fine weather. Fires were being lit all around the place. The boundary fence was only a few saplings and would not hold stock. There may have been a fence in the early history of the place, but the first intimation he had of any litigation was some 15 months afterwards, when he complained about his (Provis’) horses an noying him. He told defendant after the fire that he was prepared to help erect the fence when he was ready. The claim is exaggerated, and the value of the work. He had a lot of dry wood stacked, and it was hardly likely that he would set a fire alight to destroy his stock and property. He was not there at the time it was alleged he lit the fire.

To Mr Patterson: He did ride up to Provis on the day of the fire. He did not light any fire on that day. He was at home on the day of the fire, which did not travel on the ground between him and Provis on that day. Mr Meldrum said that the claim of £2 for trespass was that the gate was erected on plaintiff’s land. Defendant had no right to destroy the gate, and he would allow £2 claimed for that item. In the case of the fire, anyone lighting fires that damaged his neighbour’s property was liable and he held that plaintiff lit the fires, and as he had repaired the fence in some degree, tho difficulty was to assess tho value of damage done. The fence was not worth. £2/10/- or even 35/per chain. It would hardly be called a legal fence. Defendant was to blame for allowing the claim to stand for so long. He allowed Provis £lO on the counter claim and costs, £l/16/-.