SCHOOL COMMITTEES’ AUDIT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 51, 24 November 1926, Page 5

SCHOOL COMMITTEES’ AUDIT

A QUESTION OF FEES

ACCOUNTANT'S CLAIM FAILS

A claim wade by a Wellington accountant, Jonn t'raucis Ijm xiaimau, against the U einuglun Euucuuou i/uuru, was heard oy nis Honour Mr. Justice .-rlpers in lue supreme Court yesterday, me puunliu was iqncstwu uy mi. A. Vi. uluir. while Mr. C. 1. A. msiop appeared tor Uiu board. It was claimed uy lue plaintiff that on Milieu 2D, xa.u, ue nas instructed by the uetendant buaid to audit all the accounts ol lue school conimutees ot tue schools iu tue district controlled by tue vi eliingcou r.duciinuii ooard. The total number of committees miolted was iBO. tile plaintiff stated that the worn had laiieii him iUGJ hours to accomplish, tie had been paid Xi's on account by the board, and claimed a balance ot .£667, being auditor s lees at the rate of seven guineas per day of seven hours bj the ue.encc it was claimed that the work had been applied lor by the plaintiff, and that lie u.ul been engaged to do the work at a reasonable sum to be determined by the chairman of the education board. This sum, however, was not to exceed the sum of .£75, the amount paid by the board for its audit or the previous year. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Blair ucnied that the plaintiff had approached the board and had applied for the position. Uu the contrary, the board had approached the plaintiff through its chairman (Air. T. lorsylh), and had suggested to him that ho should do the work. The plaintiff denied that any limit had been decided upon as far as the sum to be paid to him for his services was concerned. The sum was to be a reasonable one, to be decided upon by Mr. Forsyth, who was himself a member of the New Zealand Society of Accountants.

After legal argument, which lasted nearly all day, during which numerous witnesses were examined by both counsel, His Honour Mr. Justice Alpers delivered his judgment. “It is a very unfortunate position indeed,” said His Honour. “Not only is the 41742 claimed by the plaintiff for his services so much in excess of what ought to be paid that it is absurd, but the 4175 which the board agreed to pay is also much too little.” His Honour did not consider that the work which had to bo performed by the plaintiff could be finished in the time represented by the <£7s which was paid to him. In returning a verdict against the plaintiff. His Honour stated that he did so merely on account of the great improbability that both the chairman and secretary of the board should have committed themselves to an arrangement which put the question of salary at large. It was a chairman’s duty to act within the circumference of his instructions. Clearly, be considered, this was the position in the present ease. His Honour also expressed the opinion that to all intents and purnoses the plaintiff had been perfectly willing to accept the nosition, and had even actually desired it. -. . It was unfortunate for the plaintiff that such a contract had been entered into, said FTis Honour, but once entered into it would have to be upheld. "With very much regret,” he said. “T will have to find in favour of the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs on the lowest scale.