GORSE AND GRAVEL

Grey River Argus, 1 July 1925, Page 2

GORSE AND GRAVEL

FIGURE IN CIVIL ACTION. CLAIAI FOR £95 DAAIAGES. Gorse, gravel and tramlines figured prominently in a civil action heard in the Alagist rate’s Court yesterday morning, before Afr W. Meldrum, S.AI., when Andrew Steel, of Blaketown, proceeded against William Ogilvie and Co., sawmill owners, of Marsden, for the sum of £95, representing damage alleged to be caused to plaintiff’s farm | property at Alarsden. Briefly stated, the facts are thatfour years ago plaintiff acquired the property, and defendant Company constructed three tramlines—a main line and two branches—thereon for the purpose of running timber to their mill. A considerable quantity of gravel was used in the construction of the tramlines and, plaintiff alleged, through negligence on the part of defendants in leaving the gravel there after the lines were removed, gorse had been, and was still. springing up through the gravel. Previously the land had been free from gorse, the Jatement of claim “setting on the bringing of the gravel on to the land was responsible for the appearance of the gorse. Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for plain[tiff, and Air J. W. Hannan for defendant Company. Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that about fifteen months ago, defendant constructed three tramways on his (plaintiff’s property. There was a main line and two branch lines. A considerable amount of gravel was used in the construe- | lion of the tramways. Gorse was com- | ing up in all the tramways. Witness i attributed this to the gravel as pre- j . viously there had been no gorse on his property. He had bc<,i put to consid- | erable trouble in trying to clear the i ground of gorse, and had used all [ means, but to no effect. To Air Hannan: The land where the ! tramways are was previously bush j land. Turnips and grass seed were j sown in the locality. <r was only since the gorse began to ap]>ear that witness : | had made any complaint against Air Ogilvie, lie had never seen gorse on j any of his property before. | Albert Henry AfcKane, Borough ; gardener, gave evidence to the etloct , I that he inspected the land, in com- i ! puny with Mr Steel, on May 17th last, j Witness testified to* three tramways | being on the land and to the fact that in places gorse was growing thickly i throngli the gravel. From experience | witness had found it almost impossible , t (l eradicate gorse from land. 'There | was no gorse elsewhere on Mr Steel’s' property. He was of opinion that the [ gorse was carried there by the gravel. | To Mr Hannan: He would say that , the land was worth £5 or more nil acre. For the Defelice, Mr Hannan stated that only one tram was constructed within the boundary of plaintiff’s property, and that was branch G, where very little gorse was growing. Uoum sei contended that under the provisions of the Act, defendant had a [ right to construct the tramways within i the sawmill area. James Stewart Ford, qualified sur- . veyor’s assistant, gave evidence to the j effect that he would value the land m I (he locality at £2 10s an acre. The freehold would probably be 100 per cent more. I To Mr Jove.-: Witness traversed H.e > tramway on June 11th hist, in order . to find out if the tramways were on j Jph.intilT’s property. Witness would I swear that they were not. To Mr Hannan: He was positive two j (of the tramlines were outside plain- | tiff’s land. William Thomas Ogilvie, Manager of defendant Company, stated that as far ris he knew only one tramline, branch 0, was within plaintifl’s boundary. The first, complaint he had received about the matter was a letter from plaintiff's counsel. Witness told plaintiff that “it was a funny way of doing business.” Witness had inspected the ground, and was of opinion that all the gorse there could be cleared in two days. Gorse would not grow on wet virgin soil such as that in question. To Mr Joyce: Plaintiff’s land was made a sawmill area in 1914. A start was made to construct the tramway-, in April 1921. A start was made to pul) them up about twelve months later. He did not think the tramways ran through plaintiff’s ground, except at the corner. Witness did not anticipate any trouble from -Mr t+teei, ns he thought Mr Steel considered it "to his advantage to have the timber removed. from his property. His Worship said he would like to be more clear regarding the boundary and reserved his decision until he had made an inspection of the land, and another survey had been made of it.