NAILS IN FRUIT TREES

Taranaki Daily News, 15 December 1932, Page 8

NAILS IN FRUIT TREES

LEAVING TENANT’S ACTIONS. ATTEMPTED MISCHIEF PROVED. Charged with mischief, W. T. Rosewarne, Normanby, was yesterday convicted in the Hawera Court by Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., of attempted mischief. He was ordered to pay costs amounting to £2 12s.

The mischief alleged was the driving of nails into fruit trees. ■ Several witnesses gave evidence that this was not harmful, but Mr. Salmon, in convicting Rosewame, took the view that it had .been done maliciously, Rosewame being unaware that no .damage would result. The information was laid by Stephen Minhinnick (Mr. L. A. Taylor). Mr., A. K. North appeared for Rosewame and entered a plea of not guilty. .The story.told by Minhinnick. was that the trouble first started when he saw Rosewarne’s horse in the. orchard of the house Minhinnick had. let tb Rosewarne. Witness complained. Later he .saw Rosewarne shaking blossom off the trees. On the Sunday prior' to Rosewame giving up possession because of his rent arrears Minhinnick was roused about midnight by a hammering noise. The hammering came from the orchard of the house occupied by Rosewarne, which was just across the road. Minhinnick saw lights moving back and forth among the trees. The following Tuesday Minhinnick visited the house, which had been vacated the presvious day by Rosewarne. In .15 assorted fruit trees he found that nails had been driven, the'bark ,of the trees being driven in by the head of the. hammer. Altogether, 45 nails, 3-inch nails and old horse-shoe nails, had been driven in. Minhinnick observed other damage. Nectarine tree branches had been cut down and used as roosts in the fowl house. Part of an ake ake hedge had been destroyed. The. hammer marks on the trees were fresh. In .his opinion, the: life of the trees was endangered by the nails.

Constable Pigeon said he inspected the orchard a few days after Rosewame had left. There were nails in the trees and marks on the bark, though not very big ones. He could not estimate how recently the nails had been driven.

Mr. North contended that there was no evidence to show that Rosewarne. had done the damage. Also it was not shown that the nails would do the trees any harm.

Rosewarne denied that he had driven, the nails into the trees. Minhinnick might have seen a light in the back yard when witness was packing prior to his departure. H. D. Hughes, Normanby town clerk, gave evidence that he did not think nails would hurt the trees as he had frequently driven nails into his own trees. It- was an excellent thing. The trees did not appear to have been shaken. The indentations on the bark were not severe. Frankly, . the opinion he had formed was that children had . driven the nails in because they were so low. V. Pawley, formerly employed for some years in a nursery, said he did not think the nails would do any damage. It was admitted, Mr. Salmon said, that Rosewarne was in arrears with his rent and was at loggerheads with his landlord. Mr. Salmon had no doubt as to the perpetrator of the incident; the evidence pointed strongly to the defendant. The defendant’s shockingly mischievous act had only failed because of Rosewarne’s ignorance that the nails would dp no harm. Should the trees die Minhinnick was free to recover! \ -