NOXIOUS WEEDS CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2430, 10 October 1900, Page 7

NOXIOUS WEEDS CASE.

(Lyttelton Times, October 4.)

The case, John Phillips (Mr Russell) v. William Boag (Mr We=ton and Mr Stringer), which first came tip in June, was again brought before Mr S. Bestlnm, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, for argument. The plainsiff claimed 592 damage-, on tlie grounds that defendant h-ci committed a breach ot agreement by allow iiig Cahlcriiian. thistles, Scotch thistles, and taies to grow on land which he Lad rented, and whioli now belonged to the plamtirr.

Mr Stringer, m opening, said tnat the first point he would like lo raise was that the plaintiff had no legal title to the land, having dimply entered into an agreement to buy it. Then lie could only claim lor damages done by growth of weads subsequent to reversion, and it was for the plaintiif to define what the amount of this damage w as. lie quoted cases in support of both these contentious. As to the claim for the Scotch tfiistlcs, they ■" ere blow ing- all over the country, -o the defendant could not be hold responsible for them, and the time for cutting them had not arrived when the lease ran out. The same argument applied to the tares. They could only be dealt with when the crop was cut, and it was cut by the plaintiff. As to Californian thistles, they had been known to be in the ground befor the lease commenced, and all that could be expected fiom the deiendaut v. as thn 1 , lie should keep them uncle** a-s well as possible. The evidence had ahov.n that it would take two years without a crop to eradicate the thistles, and it would be absurd lo expect this Irom a man whose lea^e was terminable at mx months' notice. The defendant had proved that all proper care had been taken to keep the lind clean.

Mr Rusfcll said that the words of the agreement were cles-r. The defendant had signed an agreement which stated: — "I undertake that I will not allow gorse to spread, and, iurther, that I wiU not allow noxious weeds to grow at all." The length of the notice i;ecc^ary to terminate the lease had no bearing on the matter. The witnesses for the defence had ehown that when the defendant took up the land .there was only one very nnali patch of Californian thistle^. Now Vxe thistle was spread over two acres and a-half. All TJoag had done w"as to plough the ground, and he could have devised no better method of spreading the weed, os every bit of root would grow. The defendant had done absolutely nothing to deal with the weeds that in the ordinary course oi farming operations he would have done.

The Magistrate reserved his decision.