AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 453, 23 November 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

FitIDAY, Nov. 19, 1880.

Bkfqre Justin Aylmer, Esq., It M

CIVIL CASKS,

Okain's District Ru.ad Board v. J. Dalglish : claim, £42, rent of Le Bon's Bay jetty for one year.

David Wright, Clerk to tho Board.stated that, in answer to an advertisement, the Board received a tender from defendant, offering C 42 for the lease of the jetty in question from Sept. 25, 1879. That tender was accepted. He put in the tender and the minute-book recording its acceptance ; also copy of letter, written by him as Clerk, to defendant, notifying the Board's acceptance of the same.

In reply to lefendant, witness said he had no authority himself for leasing the wharf. The : vGaz«tte" vested the jetties in the Chairman of the Road Board. It waa to the Chairman that the tenders were addressed. He (witness) simply obeyed instructions. He did not know the exact terms of the " Gazette " notice. Defendant was a member of the Comity Council at the time, and probably knew more about it than himself.

Defendant contended (1) that the 11 Cassette" notice gave the Board no power to lease the jetty. They could he dispossessed themselves at six months notice. (2) In the letter which he had received from the Board it was stated that a stamped agreement would lie prepared between him and the Board. No such agreement bad ever been submitted to him. (3) He had never been put in possession of the jetty. He had seen by the paper that his tender was accept-d-Had told (he then Chairman thathe wanted the agreement, as without it be could no* collect wharfages. In consequence of not getting the agreement, lie had never attempted lo collect any tolls. Mr Smith hail used the wharf for the first six months. He considered he had no authority to interfere with him, or any one else.

In answer to Mr Wright, defendant ad mittcd that he had never asked Mr Sinitl for the money due by him for wharfage.

Mr Wright contended that defendant wliowUl have demanded tho tolls due by Mr Smith. If he failed, ho could then have called upon the Board to protect him. Further, .he maintained that hi* letter of Sept. 27 did put defendant in possession of the wharf.

The case was adjourned till the '30th inst., for the purpose cf obtaining the evidence of Mr Barker, the then Chairman of the Board.

The Court then adjourned.