CLAIM FOR TRESPASS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20678, 25 September 1930, Page 14

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS.

TOBACCO COMPANY SUED.

CUTTING DOWN NATIVE TREES. OWNERS AWARDED £4O DAMAGES A claim for £IOO damages for alleged trespass on a property between Albany and Riverliead was made before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were Sarah Jane Brown arid her son, Douglas William Brown (Mr. Gallagher), who alleged that tho New Zealand Tobacco Company, Limited, (Mr. Biernacki), had entered on 64 acres of land they owned between Albany and Riverhead and had made a bridge and damaged tho bush there. "Thero can bo no doubt that this case should have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court," said Ilis Honor. "Indeed, if the parties had been reasonable it would never have corne to Court." Evidenco was given by James Henry Whitworth, who lived on tho plaintiffs' property, that last February ho heard chopping, and found men cutting down trees and building a bridge. Ihcy told him they had got permission from Mr Owen, the manager of tho New Zealand Tobacco Company. The bridge gave a short cut to tho Tobacco Company s property, saving about ten miles. It was built to carry tractors, but in his opinion it would never have carried one. . The plaintiff Sarah Jane Brown, in her evidence, said she had never given anyone permission to enter upon her property. In cross-examination, witness denied that she had told Dr. Horton that if the Tobacco Company did not buy her property she would bring an action for trespass.

" Bush Spoiled Completely." The bush bad been spoiled completely and she did not think that the claim, as now reduced from £4OO to £IOO, was at all unreasonable.. The other plaintiff, Douglas William Brown, also denied that he had given permission, to anyone to enter the property. About 50 trees had been cut down to build the bridge. He would not sell the land. Walter Henry Dunn, estate agent and valuer, who had visited the property, described "a very nice little piece of virgin bush" on it, with a pretty waterfall. The appearance of the place had been much depreciated by the cutting of the trees, and its value was probably £6O or £7O less. The white manukas could not be replaced, as they were so slow growing. Mr. Biernacki said the defendant company admitted going on the place and cutting down several trees, but it did it unknowingly. It thought it was on the Empire Tobacco Company's property, where it had leave to go. His Honor said it was a pity that explanation had not been offered in answer to the first letter. A peremptory reply that the defendant had received the letter and was prepared to accept the writ was not the way to settle a case. Judgment of the Court.

Dr. W. H. Horton, chairman of directors of the New Zealand Tobacco Company, said it was utterly ridiculous to suggest that the cutting of the two pines and five manuka trees had made any difference to the appearance .of the place. The manukas were just such as were sold from any wood yard at 30s a ton. He thought the unimproved value of the Browns' land was about half a crown an acre.

The manager of the New Zealand Tobacco Company, William Henry Owen, gave evidence that he had given inf ructions for a bridge to be made to carry tractors oil what he understood to bo a public road. Allan William Bridgeford, foreman for the New Zealand Tobacco Company, said seven manuka trees and two pines had been cut down to build the bridge. Mr. Biernacki submitted that the claim should have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court. Tho claim for £4OO, or even £IOO, was ridiculous. The defendant had paid £5 into Court, and he submitted that that was a reasonable amount to satisfy the claim. In giving judgment for the plaintiff for £4O and costs oil the Magistrate's Court scale, His' Honor repeated that if the parties had been at all reasonable tho matter would have been settled out of Court. Tho peremptory tone of the letter that was written in reply to tho plaintiffs' application, without any suggestion of regret that a mistake had been made, was wrong. Then, on tho other hand, the plaintiff issued ail outrageous claim for £4OO, or nearly twice tho Crown valuation of the land. lie thought justico would be done if ho gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £4O.