FIRES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4375, 20 November 1875, Page 2

FIRES.

The house of Mr. Robert Burton, of Ruatangata West, was reduced to the ground by fire, on lOfcli Nov., at about midday. The only person in the house at the time of the accident was Mr. Burton's mother. Mr. Burton's brother arrived on the scene of the conflagration shortly after the alarm had been given by the heavy volume of smoke ascending skywards, but found the building enveloped in flames and assistance unavailing. The building was consumed alt' aether within a quarter of an hour, and ever t ' : iing was burnt with the exception of a lifOs'Tjeclclothing. About 1 p.m. on "Wednesday, (the 10th STov.,) the lire-bell at the top of Wakefieldstreet rang an alarm, which was taken up by the other bells. The Brigade mustered with promptitude, and in a very short time Xo. 2 engiue and the hook-and-ladder carriage were on their way to the scene. It seems that some grass and gorse in a gully opposite the house of Mr. Hughes, solicitor, of Shortland-street, was being burnt, when some sparks, conveyed by the high wiud prevailing, lodged on the top of the house,_ which was speedly in a blaze. Plenty of assistance was at hand, and the house was soon emptied of furniture. Fortunately six members of the Fire-brigade were workmg in the foundry of Messrs. Fraser and Tinne, close by, and so promptly did they run to the spot, and so well did they work, that by the time the engine arrived the lire was nearly extinguished bv the means of buckets. Had it not been for their prompt exertions at the commencement, it would have been almost impossible to have saved the buildin". As it is, however, not much damage is done, about half the roof being all that is burnt. The water, however, has been rather destructive in the upper stories of the house. The house and furniture are fully insured in the South British Insurance Company.

Oar Katikati correspondent' -writes:—: On Oetober3l one.'of the special settlers, ■ifr Loach,'had the misfortune to have his < hnt burnt to the ground, and lost many valu-; able articles, the actual value 1 have not; been able to ascertain. I have made all the . inquiries I can as to how the fire took place, and have come to the conclusion that it was : rarely accidental. A fire was left outside, and covered with oyster shells, and the ,rind being rather high must have blown j some fire towards the tent. A report was; sent to Tauranga stating that the Hauhaus had set fire to it. • Captain Foster immediately took horse and came here to investigate the affair. I have not heard the result, but this I am prepared to state, that the natives never set fire. I have spoken to the head of the Hauhaus here, and he is very much annoyed at their being accused. He says that they are at peace with the Europeans, and intend to be, and rather than fire the whares, would swim across the river and assist in putting out the fires, and the truth of this they proved about a fortnight ago. The whare occupied by Mr. Andrew Wilson took fire, and the natives saw the flames, and at once vfint over the river and put out the fire, thereby saving a good deal of property from destruction. I also learn that we are to have a number of the Armed Constabulary stationed here, but for what purpose I cannot ascertain. The potatoes, oats, and maize planted by the settlers are growing very well, the weather being favourable for their growth. LAW. No other than merely formal business has occupied the superior Courts since the last mail. Some changes have taken place in consequence of the death of the late Judge Beckham. Mr. R. O. Barstow, formerly Resident Magistrate at the Bay of Islands, at Papakura, and afterwards at Onehunga, has been appointed Resident Magistrate of Auckland. The appointment has given very general satisfaction. Mr. F. D. Fenton has been appointed District Judge, vice the late Mr. Beckham. He was acting Judge for some time, and bis conduct of the business had inspired confidence both in legal practitioners and the public. Mr. Justice Gillies is absent from Auckland at the '' Court of Appeal," which is held in Wellington. There are three appeals from Auckland set down for hearing, namely. Pearce v. Williamson, Smith and Thomas and others, and Spencer and Mayo. In the first there was some conflict of testimony as to the terms of a conversation under which a certain agreement was made, and the question reserved is one relating to the admissibility of evidence. The second illustrates very aptly the position of the '' working man" in these colonies. The plaintiff is a gold-digger, and the defendants are the proprietors of the famous Queen of Beauty gold mine at the Thames. The plaintiff contracted to work a certain stope, but for some reason he was turned out of the stope, and he brings his action for breach of contract, laying his damages at £16,000. The amount of damages claimed is explained by the fact that a good find of gold was discovered in this part of the, mine. The point reserved is interesting in a legal point of view. There are six shareholders in- the ownership of the Queen of Beauty mine. One of the six was absent, and consequently he did not appear by name .as one of the signatories of the contract. But.the other five signed for all the shareholders. The question is, was the contract ,a valid one ? That is to say, can the execu- ; tion by five out of six be interpreted as an act.of competent agency? Second: What . analogy is there between a co-adventure of this kind and. an ordinary co-partnership in respect to the responsibility of co-partners ■ executing legal instruments. The third case -is also interesting. The owner of the ornamental Gardens, Parawai, Thames Goldfields, leased to two persons, '.who were co-partners, for the profitable working of that concern. One of the partners surrendered his interest in the lease, leaving- the other in possession. The landlord determined to re-enter, and ■ did, accordingly, make "forcible" entry, 'for which he, with the tenant who had surrendered, were indicted. The jury found •them guilty, a fine being inflicted. The question raised is, whether a landlord has power to re-enter under the circumstancss detailed, where the lessees are co-partners, one .of them surrendering his interest, but the, lessor not-being able to accept the other, and making forcible entry in furtherance of his just rights. The only case actually pending is a case affecting the status of apprentices before Mr. Fenton, who has not yet delivered judgment.