A TIMBER FLOATING DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8265, 26 May 1890, Page 3

A TIMBER FLOATING DISPUTE.

A curious case occupied the attention of the Justices JDr. Norton and H. C. Coutts, at Dargavillb on' Friday last. A settler named George Kerr, of Maungakararaoa, was charged with a breach of the 51sb section of the Malicious Injury to Property Act, 1869, that ho did unlawfully and maliciously destroy five kauri logs of the valuo ot about £25, by blasting, cutting, and otherwise destroying them, of the goods and. chattels of the Kauri , Timber Com : pnny ; the accused having been arrested on his property at Maungakaramoa on the loth inst. by Constables Scott and McLeod on the criminal information of Richard Cossell, a bush contractor of the company. Mr. K. T. Dufaur, of Auckland, appeared to prosecute, and Mr. William Thome, also of Auckland, for the accused. The evidence of Cossell was to the effect that it being moro convenient to take the logs from the conipan bush on the defendant's land into = the creek than from the Government road, he had asked permission of defendant, who said he, would not pub anything in his way, but after taking a number of logs through his land to the creek, lie receivod notice not to trespass nor to remove any timber from the land iu question, and that he consequently desisted and'had not attempted to roll any more logs off the land into the creek until told by the Company to complete his contract, when he went to defendant and told him ho was going to clear the creek of the timber. He found a notice posted up cautioning any person from trespassing. The defendant told him if he interfered with the creek he would go back and get his gun and shoot the first man that interfered with anything on his property. Toavoid theseconsequences, witness did nob touch the timber, but went again on the 11th instant, and found that five of the logs had been blasted, some of them split into posts and split and lying in the creek. He denied that he had done any damage to defendant's land when he pub tho logs there, but admitted he had cut about a chain or two of natural or wild bush of no market value, to got bhe timber through before ho had received the notice not to trespass, and there were no other logs in the creek besides the Kauri Timber Company's. A witness named Anderson proved working for the defendant, and to being engaged with him in splitting up tho logs in question, and Robert Bramley, Bush Inspector to tho Kauri Timber Company, deposed to inspecting tho timber belonging to the company in tho creek adjoining defendant's land, also to interviewing Kerr in reference to allowing Cossell to remove the timber when the former refused, on the ground that tho company did not hold a timber floating license for that creek. The defendant did not make any claim to the timber, nor had any damage been done to defendant's property by the logs.. After other evidence had been adduced of a documentary nature, and to which Mr. Thorno took objection, that gentleman opened tho defence by characterising tho criminal proceedings as a highhanded mode of procedure, whilst a civil action would have been sufficient bo recover any damages that the defendant might be liable for. The defendant then gave evidence to the effect that damage having been caused to his land by baking tho timber across he had made demand for £25 compensation, and this not being satisfied he considered he was justified in making use' of 'the timber in the manner ho had done. The Court having partially heard the evidence'and pleadings decided that although it had been proved that tho accused had taken the company's timber unlawfully no malice had been shown as declared to in the information, which would therefore be dismissed, leaving the company the option to take civil action. Defendant's costs applied for wore not allowed,