THE COURTS

Western Star, 8 March 1938, Page 2

THE COURTS

LONGWOOD FIRE CASE. The case E. Shore v. D. Watson, claim I'or damages to buildings and farm implements caused as the result of a fire which started on defendant’s ground and spread to plaintiff’s property ’ was continued in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. Evidence for plaintiff was given by Mrs Shore, who stated that they made nn effort to qunch the fire when it spread on to tlieir property, but without success. Tlie house was destroyed by fire about 3.30 p.m. on the Wednesday. To Mr Russell: It would be about twelve'months before that that firing was carried out on their property. General clearing had been earned out sinue then, but no fires had been started, and there were no fires there during September and October. The five started in a hut belonging to her uncle. Henry John Roberts, farmer, said he resided near Watson’s house. He saw Watson put his cows out on the Saturday morning and shortly after he (witness) noticed smoke arising from the property. Watson had been burning further down towards the river on his own property a few days previously. He did not see him light any fires. He did not notice any fires on Shore’s property and .passed there daily. He also did not see any fires on Goodwillie’s property. To Mr Russell: Defendant wa s about 200 yard s distant when he noticed him. He had never seen a peat fire on Shore’s property. His property adjoins the railway and be had seen fires which had apparently started from the sparks from the railway engine. The fire on Watson’s property could not have started from this source.

Edward Howell gave evidence in respect to fires. He did not notice any fires before the one that destroyed the property. He did some burning on Shore’s property about a year ago of s ome stumps. David Watson, defendant, gave evidence in respect to the fire, - He saw plaintiff after the fire, but plaintiff denied burning peat on hi s own property. He knew Roberts, and had a disagreement with him over the boundary fence. He denied being in the place mentioned l>y witness or lighting any fire s a fire pould be started by throwing down a lighted match owing to the dry nature of the ground. On Wednesday he was working a swamp plough. Cross-examined: He did not see any trace of the fire when he returned home from work. He did not notice any fires on his property but noticed a fire on the hill. He saw a fire on his property on Sunday morning. There had been fires on Goodwillie’s hill since September. It was quite possible that the fir© from this property could have spread to Shore’s. He was ploughing all day on the Saturday prior to the fire. .He did not see any trace of the fire on his property on .tiie Sunday. ’ At thi s stage the court adjourned for lunch.