ELTHAM COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 22 September 1926, Page 10

ELTHAM COURT.

; YESTERDAY’S SITTING. RIY r ER TIMBER DISPUTE. The fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Elthani was held yesterday, Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., presidJohn George Robertson, farmer, of the Stuart Road, near Eltham, took proceedings against Herbert Mehrtens and George Nielson, of Elthani, plaintiff claiming the sum of £8 in respect of certain totara posts which he alleged had been removed -without permission from the banks of the YVaingongoro river on his property'. Mr J. L. YVeir represented plaintilt and Mr D. Clement appeared for defendants. Outlining the claim, Mr YVeir submitted that defendants, -who had been engaged in procuring metal from the bed of the YVaingongoro river, had taken totara timber from plaintiff’s property, and after splitting it into posts had sold it. Plaintiff stated in evidence that he owned the freehold of 132 acres of a section fronting Stuart Road. The 'back boundary on the' eastern side was the YVaingongoro river. He knew that the work of defendants took them up the river in procuring stone. At one portion of the river bed the bank had been under-mined by erosion and about five .years previously five totara logs had been unearthed. EXPOSED BY EROSION. Since then other logs had been exposed from time to time. About September of last year (1925) Mehrtens had asked witness to sell a tawa tree. YVitness had given the tree. Some time later he found that post-splitting had been going on in the Tiveribed and that the posts had been sold by defendants. He saw 60 to 89 posts in Ware’s mart in Elthani, and claimed them, telling the auctioneer not to sell them. Later Mehrtens had denied, in conversation ■with witness’s wife, that he had taken posts from witness’s property. Early in the new year, however, Mehrtens, in conversation, with witness, had admitted cutting 30 posts from witness’s place. Mehrtens had asked whether he would get them back or whether witness would take them from the mart. YVitness had said lie would see what he could do after ascertaining where the other posts had come from. Witness was unable to attend to the matter immediately. When he did go to the mart, lie was told that of those lie had seen previously, 30 posts had been left for. him. Afterwards he discovered that these also had 'been taken. Witness interviewed defendant Mehrtens, but could obtain no satisfaction. Nielson had admitted taking wood from witness’s property, but left it to Mehrtens ,to settle. YVitness understood that the posts had been sold for 2s each.

Questioned by Mr D. Clement, witness could not define the actual boundary of his porperty, but contended that the river had cut in beyond the original survey pegs by fully three chains. The log disputed had been cut up, about three-chains beyond the edge of the river on the other side. The liver bed would be from four to five chains in width. He could not definitely say where the log 'had been taken from, but understood it had been taken from witness’s side of -the stream. PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. The magistrate explained; that the boundary of the respective properties would reach to the middle of the stream, fcnd, as its. banks altered, so would- the boundary move: Any* logs found on plaintiff’s side of the middle of the river would belong -to him, but whereas it was admitted that, the disputed- log had been cut up beyond plaintiff’s boundary', there appeared! to be no proof that it had originally come from plaintiff’s property. In order for the claim to succeed it would be -necessary to show that the log had been found on, plaintiff’s side of the- centre of the riverbed. Plaintiff replied he had been told, the leg had been hauled down stream from his. side of the river. The magistrate stated it would be necessary to cal l, the alleged informant as a. witness in order to have the statement admitted as evidence. After a brief discussion with counsel, he nonsuited the plaintiff and allowed- defendant £1 Is- costs. “A PUBLIC NUISANCE.”

“No doubt the practice is becoming a public nuisance, and I propose to raise the fines 'gradually until, they become prohibitive,” said the magistrate, iii fining John Hamilton, o-f Stratford 40s and 17s 6d costs! -oni a charge of having ridden a. motor-cycle without :• silencer at Eltham on the eveniiig of July 2. Mr St. L. Reeves, who conducted the prosecution for the Eltham Borough Conned, stated the matter was becoming a. most important one and -the practice of riding motor-cycles without silencers had been, the. subject of complaint from many quarters. “Despite convictions by the- court,” counsel continued, “the. nuisance is becoming greater, and I would suggest that a« the infliction of small fines does not seem to be a deterrent that the cxi.se is a matter for a. larger penalty;” Thte case against defendant, who did not- appear, was proved' by YV. J. C. Macdonald, borough traffic inspector. CIVIL CASE. In the case Ira. J. Bridger v. G. Major, claim for £ll 6s 6d, judgment was given' for plaintiff by* default, with costs totalling £2 16s.