SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7189, 15 June 1885, Page 3

SUPREME COURT— CIVIL SITTINGS.

Saturday, June 13. (Before Chief Justice Prendergaat.) FIRTH V. SHTJGAB. This was an action to recover £200 . damages. Mr Lascellea appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cornford for the defendant. £- The plaintiff's case was that in 1882 ;?|he entered into aa agreement with de-j^-^sndant to be allowed to put a tramway through a pieoe of land at Ormondville, owned by defendant, the land being described in the deed as section 117. At the time the tramway was laid no plan was produoed by defendant, bat he constructed the tramway for plaintiff for a specified sura. Plaintiff enjoyed the use of the tramway for 2£ years, . but at the end of that time, in September, 1884, received a preemptory notice to discontinue using the tramway, on the ground that portion of it was on - section 116. The tramway was after--wards broken up in pavt by the defendant, and so rendered useless. The defence was a general denial of all the material allegations. J i Samuel Bainea Firth, sawmill owner at Ormondville, deposed that in 1882 he received permission from Mr Shugar to oonstruot a tramway on his land. Witness had a tramway at the time running through lands belonging to other persons. There was a dispute with -those persons, and Shugar came to v ' witness and gave permission for a tramway to be run through any part of his (Shu gar's) land. He pointed out the beat track for the tramway. This would be about the middle of October, 1881. Witness made an agreement with Shugar that he should lay down the tramway at £1 per chain, and Shugar chose the direction of the tramway. After doing 66 chains he refused to go on ■ fnrther, on the ground that the work did not pay him, and it was finished by day labor. . The arrangement finally : made between witness and defendant ' was that the latter should be paid £5 : -per year for the uae of the land. The written agreement produced was afterwards signed. Witness began to use ''„ ., the tramway, ia April, 1882, and conto do bo till September, 1884 In BPJ&hat month witness received notice | from defendant that the tramway r could not' be allowed to run any ' }:\ longer across section 116, but that the " original permission to run across section 117 would not be interfered with. The - : >! tramway was then broken on section 116. Witness's mill used to turn out £120 worth of timber a month, and it > was to have been let to be worked for • , per .month. The peraon who was "■ going to rent the mill afterwards threw up Mb. agreement, because the tramway bad been broken up. 'By Mr Cornford : When the mill was •; first set, up,' seven or eight years ago, • the timber was dragged through Shugar'B / land to. get to Ormondville. Witness '"could tot say when the tramway ' . throngb Shugar's land was laid, but it : ; - waß- laid directly after the mill was '--■?! started. Part of the tramway was laid y\ on the public road, but witness had i': r _ received no permission to lay it there, • ■ .and if that portion of the tramway were £' taken up, the whole of the remainder on ' :,. sections 116 and 117 would be of no ser- ■•-"'■'•' vice. William Shukar gave evidence relating £::: to the time the tramway was laid, and >; to hearing that the mill was to be let for £32 a week. That fell through in J^-'V consequence of the tramway, being cut. ;C On the application of Mr Cornford £ri .■."'» .the further hearing of the oase was adv/ 1 -^ journed till after his Honor's return f V'/trbm Gisborne.