BUSHFELLING CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13602, 6 February 1915, Page 5

BUSHFELLING CLAIM.

Judgment in the case of Claud Rusher (Mr L. T. BurnaidJ v. Francis .Stafford, sheepfarmer (Mr J. Da-wson), n bushfelling case, which was heard before Mr IV. A. Barton, S.M., at the M;igi. tiate's Court yesterday, was deiiveivd iit tiio Courthouse this morning. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he has satisfied from the* evidence that a verbal contract was entered into between the- parties to fell the bush in. question for the sum of £25, and it was clear that plaintiff should have sued against the contract, and not for \v;!»es. The defendant said that the contract had not been completed, but lit the same time he admitted that he had not a.t- any time made complaint to plaintiff as to the manner ,in which plaintiff was doing the work. That being so, his Worship considered that he must take it that the contract Mas reasonably ■ performed. With a view of saving further litigation, his Worship said he would give judgment as he found it to stand in equity and good conscience. The amount of the contract was £25, from which must be deducted £12 paid on account, leaving a balance in favor of plaintiff of ±Jl3, for which amount judgment would be entered, but under the circumstances he would allow no costs. In reference to the counter claim, he was of opinion that the fire was caused through the neglect of defendant. Counter-claim-ant stated that- defendant admitted that he lighed. the fire, and gave him an account of how it had spread. This Avas denied by defendant, but he was satisfied that defendant (Rusher) did* light the fire which^'caused the damage, and that counter-claimant was entitled to compensation for the injury done, the onljf question being as to the amount. He thought £10 would be a reasonable allowance, and judgment was entered accordingly, without costs. This would leave a balance in favor of plaintiff in the original action for £3.