TIMBER DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 19394, 7 November 1924, Page 7

TIMBER DISPUTE

AN OTATARA CASE. JUDGMENT DEFERRED. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr G. Cruickshank, SM., Thomas William Allen (Mr Mitchell) claimed from Albert Abdul Howell the sum of £2O 0/4, alleged to be owing in respect of timber belonging to plaintiff which was used by defendant. In outlining the case, Mr Mitchell saidthat the defendant was a tenant of plaintiff, a land-holder at New River Ferry, and had taken a quantity of timber which had been stacked on plaintiff’s land, and used it to make culverts and pig-stys. The police had previously prosecuted defendant for theft, but the case had been dismissed by Mr Bundle, S.M., who was on the Bench at that time. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. Sergeant Hewitt said that on July 29 he had inspected defendant’s pig-sties, which were made of the timber belonging to plaintiff. Defendant said that he had a right to the timber, as he had lent plaintiff a horse. The wood was old but sound. Thomas William Allen said that he was the owner of property situated north of defendant’s lease at Otatara. He bought the land in September, 1923, and at that time, the timber from an old house which had been pulled down was stacked on it. About that time witness received an offer from Ford Bros, for the property, including the stacked timber and the bricks. Defendant asked witness if he would sell some of the timber, but witness refused. When he discovered that the timber had been taken, he interviewed defendant, who admittd taking some of it. The wood was good, sound, useful timber, and was worth 17/per 100 feet. Defendant had used some of the timber to build culverts which enabled him to pass from his property to that of witness, and had also used it in making sties. Other land-holders in the district gave evidence as to the amount of timber that was stacked, and the uses to which defendant had put it. Patrick Ford stated that, he had at one time made an offer to purchase it from plaintiff. At that time there was plenty of good timber amongst it. FOR THE DEFENCE. Albert A. Howell said that he rented the land next to which the house stood. The house was marked on a survey map dated 1862, and was pulled down in 1919. It was unused, and animals occasionally went into it and died there. He had asked plaintiff if he could have some of the timber, and plaintiff had nodded. He took this as an answer in the affirmative, and had taken the timber. The amount he took was about 200 feet, and in its condition was worthless for anything except odd uses such as he had put it to,

John Gordon and Charles Marshall, residents in the district, said they were present when the sample of timber (produced) had been taken from the stack. It was a fair sample, and in their opinion the amount of timber defendant had taken was worth £1 at the outside. Norman Howell, son of the defendant, said he had helped to cart the timber from the stack to the pig-sty. Plaintiff was watching them while they were unloading it from the dray, and he did not remonstrate about the matter. At this stage the Court adjourned in order to allow his Worship to visit the locality. Judgment will be given on Saturday morning.