FARMERS AT LAW

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXI, Issue 8836, 23 October 1942, Page 2

FARMERS AT LAW

CUTTING OF SHELTER BELT POWER-LINE TROUBLE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MADE i A dispute between two neighbouring farmers was ventilated in the Waihi Magistrate’s Court, or) Wednesday, when Claude Raymond Morel, of Waitawheta (Mr F. C. V. Clark), proceeded against Samuel McLean (Mr H. L. Boughton) for damages for trespass. The claim was filed for £75 ,but Mr Clark, in opening, intimated that he was reducing it to £35. Facts Outlined Outlining the facts, Mr Clark stated that during the week-end of May 15 last the plaintiff was away from the farm he owned at Waitawheta, and his son was left in charge. Alongside the road giving access to McLean’s farm plaintiff had planted a shelter belt of pine trees in the same year that the road was put through. This was about 1927. No power-lines were then ' erected, but during a heavy storm during the week-end* of May 15 a branch from one of the pine trees in the shelter belt came down and broke the pow-er-line. A gang from the Thames Valley Electric Power Board came to repair the damage on the Sunday, and defendant and one, Neilson, came down to assist the gang. Defendant adopted a truculent attitude and was abusive towards plaintiff’s son. Defendant wanted to chop the trees right out, but the foreman of the gang made it quite plain that all that was required was to top the trees. Defendant and Neilson then went down the road, and later young Morel noticed that Neilson was cutting the trees right down. It was alleged that ten trees were cut down by Neilson, and it was further claimed that Neilson was the servant or i agent of McLean. For the loss of the shelter afforded by the trees plaintiff now claimed £35.

Evidence for Plaintiff The evidence of Joseph 'Henry Weedon was taken at Wellington and produced in court. He stated that McLean was truculent and wanted the trees cut right down, but witness made it plain to defendant that it was only necessary to trim the trees. He stated that where trimmed by the Power Board the trees made a neat, trim shelter belt. Under crossexamination, he admitted that the trees would be a constant source of trouble unless kept properly trimmed. Broken power-lines were a source of danger to users of the road.

The evidence of William Raymond More] was also read as he as well is in camp. Morel confirmed Mr Clark’s opening statements. Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that he counted ten trees cut down by Neilson. He had never been warned to top the trees, which afforded a valuable shelter belt. He had seen Neilson’s car at McLean’s about three weeks before the storm, and also saw him doing odd jobs, but he could not say what they rtere. Under cross-examination he denied that he had been warned to top the trees. If the troubleman had an entry of the warning in his diary he would still deny it. He considered ten trees were cut as his son had told him ten were cut. If his son said only five were cut then it was a mistake. He was sure ten were cut, although he had not seen them cut. . Case for Defence For the defence, Mr Boughton contended that it had not been proved that Neilson was McLean’s servant or agent. The only evidence was that of Weedon, and that did not assist plaintiff in that connection. Defendant stated that Neilson was not his employee, but was purely on a social visit to his farm. It was 18 months before that he had employed Neilson. He did not know Neilson was coming out to his place that week-end, nor did he direct Neilson to cut the trees down. He, the defendant, was never on Morel’s property. Under cross-examination, witness denied that Neilson was coming out to his place by arrangement. He admitted that he intended taking a holiday to Auckland, but denied that Neilson was to take charge of the farm, Neilson had never been in charge of the farm.

Axes Neilson, now in camp, stated that he chopped down the trees, thinking he was doing the right thing. He had had no instructions from McLean to'chop them down, and he was not employed by McLean, but was on a social visit for the weekend. Under cross-examination he stated that he had received a telephone mesasge from .McLean to go out that week-end to make arrangements to look after the farm while McLean was away. During the week-end he had helped to do a bit of concrete work for McLean, and was just pottering about. Re-exam-ined, he stated he had not been paid for any work, and was not sure when he did the concrete work. Statement by Troublcman Joseph Woods Wyatt, a troublcman employed by the Power Board, stated that he bad warned Morel to top the trees in March. He produced his dairy containing an bntiy to that effect, and also produced a report to the manager confirming the warning. Morel was wrong when he said he had not been warned. The trees were a nuisance and would always give trouble unless trimmed. He would not consider that a neat job of the trimming had been made. After remarking that it was evident that the trees were a nuisance, Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., • reserved his decision.