Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CROWN SUED

CLAIM BY HOTELKEEPER

RAILWAYMAN'S BOARD

EXPENSES

A civil action involving the liability of the Railway Department for tho living expenses 6f its ompsoyoes on transfur from one town to another was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards. The case was brought under the Crown Suits Act, tho suppliant being Annie Bruns Baker, widow, licensee of tlio Clarendon Hotel, Palmerston North, and the respondent His Majesty the Kin;:. The notice of petition set out that a shunter named M'Donald, an employes of the Railway Department at Palmerston North, his wife and child, acting upon the instructions of the Department, boarded and lodged at the suppliant's hotel from November 10, 1918, to February 12, 1919. Their account for this accommodation amounted to X7I) 17s. fid. The Department refused to acknowledge liability for this amount, and M'Donald on his part had made no payment. Mr. C. H. TreadweU appeared for the suppliant, nnd Mr. J. Prendeville for the Crown,

Edward John Paton, farmer, of Mangnwcka, who in October, 1918, was a clerk employed by the Railway Department at Palme'rston North, recalled that a shunter named M'Donald was transferred from Danricvirko to Palmcrston North. M'Donald saw witness officially about arranging his lward and lodging, stating that tho Clarendon Hotel was the only reasonable place where ho could secure accommodation. Witness asked M'Donald to get a house as 6oon as possible, and intimated that the Department would pay reasonable board and lodging until such timo as he could got a house. Tlj,is course wan followed, M'Donald and his family staying at the Clarendon Hotel. Witness himself prepared and forwarded the first two fortnightly vouchers covering M'Donald's account. Those were for .£lO 10s. each. No cheque being forthcoming, tho licensee of the hotel wrote to the Department at Wellington and was informed that the account would be paid. So far as witness knew, no payment had been made, however. Witness had personally forwarded vouchers in similar cases'"to that of M'Donald, and he had never heard of any of them being rejected by the Department. It seemed to have been the. general practico of tho Department to pay the board and lodging of railway men in such circumstances as' these. Under cross-examination, witness admitted (hat he knew that tho regulation provided for the payment of boarding allowance for one week, "and after that at the discretion of tho General Manager." Douglas Baker, a son of the suppliant, also gave evidence. John Francis M'Donald, the shunter in question, stated that he was. now employed at the woolworks, Woolston. He, himself, had paid nothing of the account. He was not transferred to Palmcrston North at his own request, and on arrival there he was unable to get a house. On previous transfer the Department h«d always paid his expenses. For the defence, Mr. Prendeville argued that there was no contract, expressed or implied, between Haker and the defendant. It was not tho practico of the Department to, make such arrangements a 6 had been disclosed in tho case before the Court. Counsel also contended.that neither the stationmaster nor the shunter had a right to bind the Department. Payment of the board of men on transfer was, after the expiry of one week, at th>; discretion of the General Manager. His Honour, who reserved his decision, observed in the course of the proceedings that the Department ought, to have told the hotelkeener that it did not intend to pay M'Donald's account.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200226.2.72

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 130, 26 February 1920, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
579

CROWN SUED Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 130, 26 February 1920, Page 6

CROWN SUED Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 130, 26 February 1920, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert