AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 195, 31 May 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

_ ♦ Tuesday, May 28. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. h. h. fenton v. akaroa and wainui road BOARD. This was a claim for an amount due for engineering work and survey on that part of the main road known as the Horseshoe-bend diversion. The Clerk to the Board, Mr Barwick, was the party against whom the summons had been issued on behalf of the Board, but, with the consent of the plaintiff and by the permission of the Bench Mr J. Duxbury, a member of the Board, who had received the necessary authority, was allowed to conduct the case. The plaintiff stated that the account was for professional labour done by authority of the Board under the Public Works Act. The terms agreed on between himself and the Board were three guineas per day, or £2 5s the Board finding the labour. The work had been completed with great care, and there was no inaccuracy in it as far as he knew! The account had been sent in, and he expected to be paid for the work done. By Mr Duxbury: The work was done under the Public Works Act. He was not a certificated surveyor at the time of doing the work, but was so now. Could not say whether the work could be actually considered as finished, the plan 3 obc, not bearing the signature of an authorised surveyor. This, however, had nothing to do with the case, as the Board know he was not certificated in its present meaning at that time. He had done no work .for the Hoard.iv March. Had received no money for the work that was uoiruj. sued for. Did not remember sending in a bill .for this work on May sth, arid receiving a cheque for it. Further cross-examination here elicited the fact that there were clerical errors in the dates of the work as charged in the account furnished to the Board. The plaintiff's books plainly shewed this. * Mr' Duxbury contended these errors altered their line of defence altogether, and asked for an adjournment for a week, as the Board would now defend the -case on the grounds of exorbitancy of charge, to prove which it would be necessary to obtained the evidence of an authorised expert. Plaintiff objected to the adjournment, but the Bench considered that as the plaintiff's own clerical errors bad misled the Board to a certain extent, it was but reasonable, to allow them time to get up their other line of defence. The ease was accordingly adjourned to Tuesday, June 4th. J. BEECHER V. J. SULLIVAN. Oa this case being called, there was no appearance of either party, and the case was accordingly struck out. The Court then adjourned.