RIGHT TO CUT WOOD

Taranaki Daily News, 11 April 1935, Page 12

RIGHT TO CUT WOOD

TIMBER-CUTTING DISPUTE. MAGISTRATE GIVES JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was given for the plaintiff, Allan Unsworth, by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at New Plymouth on 7 -esday in a claim and counter-claim arising out of wood-cutting contracts on a farm on Albert Road and the disposal of the wood.

Unsworth, labourer, New Plymouth, claimed £l6 3s 9d, being £9 3s 9d for 12J cords at 15s a cord and £7 royalty payable on timber sold, from Patrick Carey, Albert Road, and the separate estate of Theresa Bridget Carey. Defendants coun-ter-claimed for £24 13s, being damage to the orchard and work in clearing up £8 9s, damage to 50 young trees in the house plantation £5, damage to the hill plantation and cost of clearing logs and debris £7 4s, and damage to fences and four hawthorn trees cut down £4. Judgement was given for Unsworth for £9 3s 9d, less 30s for clearing-up work which Unsworth admitted he had promised to do. At the hearing Mr. L. E. Sowry represented the Careys and Mr. H. St. L. Reeves appeared for Unsworth. Unsworth and his. partner had obtained cutting rights on the farm owned by James and subsequently sold to Carey, said Mr. Woodward. It seemed improbable that if they had been distinctly told not to fell trees after a certain date that they would have done so and risked losing the wood. The facts also showed that after Carey took possession and refused to let them remove the wood he apparently referred them to James, who had told them to stop. Weigel, Unsworth’s partner, had written to James, receiving a sympathetic reply. Then' Carey admitted it was he and not James who put on the embargo. There seemed to be some uncertainty as to who gave the instructions. It was admitted by plaintiff that he promised not to fell any moje trees after June 12 but he had said he had the right to split what was already felled. . There was a doubt about the time at which the trees in the orchard were felled' and he could not believe the evidence of defendants that it was after June 12. That part of plaintiff’s claim for £9 3s 9d would be allowed against which would be an allowance of 30s for clearing up work which Unsworth had said he would do. Regarding the £7 claim for royalty it appeared there had been an agreement between James and Belk. As neither the terms nor Belk was before the magistrate he could not understand the position. That part of the claim , had not been proved. On the counter claim the magistrate held the damage had not been proved and an allowance of 30s had already been made for clearing debris. The agreement concerning the milling timber in the mill plantation had apparently been with Belk and he did not know whose responsibility it was. With regard to other damage Unsworth had said the fences were in the same condition when sold as was complained of. Mr. Woodward said he had no reason to give undue credence to the evidence of Carey and Mrs. Carey and could make no allowance for alleged damage. The question of costs was reserved for discussion by counsel.