DISTRICT COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8765, 29 April 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, April 28. — Before Ilia Honor MiDistrict Judge Kettle. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES l!\ r FIUE. 11. X. Liardct v. Sarah llcwcs. Mr ■Samuel for the plaintiff, Mr T. Hutchison for the defendant. This was a claim for £53 5s for damage occasioned to plaintiff's farm, sec 3, block 1, Ngaire District, near Stratford, through lire, on February 1, 1890, that came from the defendant's farm, sec 4, block 5, Ngaire District. The statement of claim was amended on Mr Samuel's application, iv order to impute negligence to the defendant. The defence was a general denial of the statements set forth in the claim. Mr Samuel, after opening the case, called the plaintiff, 11. N. Liardet, who stated he was owner and occupier of sec 3, block 5, Ngaire. The farm adjoined Mrs Howes' property. There was a house on each property. They both resided on their farms. Mrs Uewes, her son, and an employee formed Mrs Uewes' household on February 1, 1890. His household consisted of his wife and himself. [At this stage, on Mr Hutchison's application, all witnesses on both sides were ordered out of Court]. Witness remembered February 1, when he left home about 7.30 in the morning for Stratford, where he carried on business as an accountant and general agent. Stratford is 3 miles from his house. It was a line morning when be left home. There was a southerly wind blowing that morning, but not a strong one. There was an explosion as he was leaving home, and on looking round he saw that it came from Hewes' farm. He took it for the blast of a log. lie took no notice of it. There was no other smoke about then but the column from this blast. lie looked carefully for signs of smoke that morning. The blast was on Mrs Hewes' section, lies to the south of his. Previous to this there had not been a lire near bis place within a week. The previous fires had been to the north of his section. [Witness here indicated the position of his house and fires in a plan produced and put in]. lie was sure this fire to the north was out before February 1, as there had been rain in between. He bad also been over the locality, and had observed the fire was out. He was anxious about fire as he had all his grass seed cut upon his property. He had 30 acres of grass seed this year. [Witness put in a plan showing the condition of his land at the time]. This seed had all been cut, an 1 the labor paid for. It bad not been threshed, but was drying prior to tlm process. He had paid £1(5 7s for labor on the seed, as mentioned in his claim. He valued the seed then at about £80 clear. He considered he would have cleared that amount out of the seed. His wife came to Stratford a little after 10 o'clock the same morning (Feb. Ist), and in consequence of her statement he went back home as soon as possible. He sent people out to his place before lie went himself. He was busy that day, and could not get away. He went home about 4 o'clock, and saw the cocksfoot near Mrs Hewes' property was on fire. The northern part of the seed was not touched. The cocksfoot was lying in bundles. The Maories he had sent up were trying to put the fire out. All the seed that was not threshed was burnt. He and the Maoris managed to salvage enough for 15 bags. He should hav"e got 100 bags out of the lot. His claim for £4 3s for grass and herbage was in connection with a back paddock of 44 acres. The paddock would have to be rc»sown. The roots of grass in the cocksfoot p.uldock were also burnt and killed. His claim on this head was a very light one, considering the damage done.

Mr Samuel asked witness with reference to a conversation witness had with Mrs Ilewos' son the same evening.

Mr Hutchison objected to his client being Lo md by admissions made by her son.

His Honor thought that sufficient evidence li.nl not been given so far to warrant the bringing of such a conversation.

Evidence continued : The son milked the cows. He also put up a stockyard, and worked generally about the farm always.

Mr Samuel again asked the question, when Mr Hutchison objected, and quoted authorities to support his contention.

After counsel had argued on the mattei, His Honor decided to admit such evidence.

The Court then adjourned to 2 o'clock

On resuming, witness gave a detail of his conversation with defendant's son on the evening of the fire. The defendant's son then told him that the fire began by the fuse after the blasting of a log. He then told Hewes that he would look to him or his mother for compensation. He gathered from young Hewes that the grass was ignited from the pieces of the fuse after blasting the log. The question of damages was left to the arbitration of Messrs Vickers and Malone. [Witness here gave a detail how he arrived at the damage.]

By Mr Hutchison: Mr Malone represented Mrs Hewes on the arbitration. Mr Malone was related to him, but witness was not friendly with him, he was sorry to say. He mentioned this in order to show that Mr Malone could not be possibly biased in his favor. [Witness was further cross examined at considerable length on his evidence.] Re-examined: lie could swear that for several days before the fire in question there was no fire about the adjoining properties, either in Malone's or Peters' place. His fences were intact prior to the fire that came from Hewes'. Mr Hewes on behalf of his mother was present at the arbitration.

Effie Liardet, wife of the last witness, stated that she remembered Saturday, February 1. Her husband went to Stratford that day. She saw nothing peculiar when he left. Some little time after her husband left Mrs Hewes came to their house — to the front door. She asked witness if Mr Liardet was at home, and she answerer] "no." Mrs Hewes then added that her place was on fire, and witness asked her how it happened. Mrs Hewes said they were blasting a log, and she supposed a spark had got into the grass. Witness intimated that Mrs Hewes ought to tell her son. Mrs Hewes borrowed a billhook, and then left. A few minutes before Mrs Hewes came Hhe noticed some smoke behind Mrs Hewes' house. She heard a blast before she saw the smoke. She saw no smoke from any of the adjacent properties at the time. Hud there been any tire within a quarter of a mile she would have seen it. After Mrs Howes went away hhe noticed that the smoke increased, and heard the fire crackling. Witness then started for Stratford on foot to acquaint her husband of the matter. She had no subsequent conversation with Mrs Hewes or her son.

By Mr Hutchison : Tlie wind was blowfrom the south-east that morning she thought, but it was not blowing strongly. [Witness was further examined.]

William Rainsford Perm, a resident near Stratford, stated he was brother-in-law of the plaintiff. He went up to Liardet's on account of news Mrs Liurdot brought down. 110 went on horseback and got up about half-past 11 o'clock, lie saw a body of smoke coming across from Mrs Hewes' property to Air Liardot's, The fire wan not on Liardet's property f then. Mrs Howes' son and sonic Maorie.s' (two iVnori women) were on Liardet's property. Young Hewea waa milking a cow he believed. Ho wont to Mrs Hewes' place to see if there was danger of its spreading to Liardet's. He observed that the wind was driving the five down on the boundary 11 np. U W:i9 m Hiich a etatg that forty fnjUs sojjjii nol fitf it euti , Jim jvwrf

round the fire to the south, and he saw a log on tho north side of a creek that had evideutly been recently blasted. The grass was burnt from that log toward Liardet's fence. On the south side of the creek there was no fire at that time. After seeing this he went back to Liardet's, Out first he spoke to Mrs Howes, and remarked to her that it was rather serious. She also remarked that they might havo put it out had they hurried, and pointing to her employee who was dawdling along said, " that's iiow they went to put it out." Afterwards witness told young Ilewes that it showed great carelessness on somebody's part. Hewes said, " Whose part?" and witness replied, "yours." He was quite certain lint he made sufficient inspection to be certain of the boundaries of tlie fire. There was no bush fire within a quarter or! a mile at tho time. The grass and pasture was exceedingly dry at the time. A fuse from a log blast would, he thought, bo likely to ignite tlie grass at that hour in the morning. There had been fire to the northwest in Malone's place some days before. He could see no signs of fire the day he went up to Liardet'n. There was no dew at the tini" of the lire.

By Mr Hutchison : Mrs Hewes did not ask him to save Mr Liardet's grass, but she did pass a remark asking if something could not be done to save Mr Liardet's farm. He saw that nothing could be done to stop the fire, lie went up to see tint the house was not burned. The fire in Malone's property, he supposed, died out because there was nothing else to feed on^ Witness was a draughtsman. He was the person who measured Mr Liardet's paddocks after the fire.

Re-examined : Tho dense smoke blowing on the grass seed paddock prevented salvage of the grass. He was convinced that thu fire he saw in Hewes' did not como from a bush fire.

By His Honor : The atmosphere to the windward was perfectly clear, lie was satisfied that the fire did not come from another place.

Iliiona Rama Watson (whose evidence was interpreted by Mr Stockman), a Maori, stated he was grass cutting in Liardet's in the beginning of February last. He went away, and then came back to thresh. He remembered hearing there was a lire on Saturday in Stratford. He was camped between Liardet's and Hewes' places. He left for Stratford early on Saturday morning. There was no fire about then. He saw Mrs Liardet in Stratford, and in consequence of what she said he walked out quickly to Liardet's and saw some fire in Mrs Hewes' place. The fire started on Ilewes' place, and was going to Liardet's. He went up to Hewes' house and went round to see the fire, which was starting on that property. He talked to young Hewes, who was putting up a yard. He asked him why he, did not stop the fire, and Hewes replied he could not. Hewes told him that he had called out to witness' w;ife to help stop the flames, but his wife did not go. He was certain the tire came from the place where the log had been blasted.

Enid Tini Watson, wife of the last witness, also gave evidence.

Wiri ?ata, August Lohmann, Edward Burrell, and Edward Vickers (Liardet's valuer,) also gave corroborative evidence.

This closed the plaintiff's case, after which the Court adjourned to Tuesday.