LONGWOOD FIRE.

Western Star, 4 March 1938, Page 2

LONGWOOD FIRE.

Continuing liis 'evidence E. Shore stated that he did not see any smoke in the paddock where Watson wag working. Shortly after he noticed smoke. There was no sign of fire at the rear of Goodwiliie’s house. Amongst the buildings claimed for was a hut Bft by "10ft. It wa a 'constructed of wood and i«on and lined. The dairy shed was l(Ht> by 12ft, hut was not lined. The work house was 25ft by 7ft, and had a partition. Other sheds destroyed wpro the ham, cow shed and stable. Cross-examined: He was the owner of the property at the time of the fire. The total purchase price was £350. The house was insured in his mother’s name for £300.. If he gave his mother £SO he would own, the' property. Has- mother gave £350 for the property some two year' s ago. The house was old, hut had been renovated. A s scon as ho saw the fire on Watson’s property he knew the cause of the fire at hi s house. Watson was notified on 30th November as to damage housed by hi’s fire. Plaintiff was examined at length in regard to the value of tools, sundries, and the outbuildings. There were no smouldering fires on his place prior to the fire on 3rd November. There was a heavy wind blowing from the west. Since the fire, portions of hj s , ; property had been smouldering. . Evidence wa s given, by S. H. Mitchell in regard to the valuation of buildings destroyed. Evidence in regard to tlie fire was given by Messrs 11. C. Johnstone and H. W. Spear. The case. wa s adjourned till Tuesday next.