McGillivray

In this action a recovery was allowed to the plaintiff for the value of forty-five tons of hay at $8 per ton. Defendant has appealed.

The hay was destroyed by fire, which, starting on the land of the defendant, spread into the hayfields of the plaintiff. It is claimed that the defendant negligently allowed the fire, which had started on his land, to extend to the lands of the plaintiff. It is the contention of appellant that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conclusion of the trial judge that negligence was shown as against the defendant. The further points are made that the finding of the court that forty-five tons of hay was destroyed, and that it was of the value of $8 per ton, are not sustained by the evidence, appellant asserting that but thirty tons of hay was shown to have been destroyed and that the reasonable market value was not shown to be greater than $6 per ton. The appeal being by the alternative method, we are left to such quotations as are made in the briefs to determine what the evi dence was. It appears that the defendant was not present on his lands at the time the fire was discovered, but his foreman was there. How the fire was started is not shown.…