H. P. KNYVETT V. E. J. O'CONOR.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1942, 27 October 1874, Page 2

H. P. KNYVETT V. E. J. O'CONOR.

L. Broad, Esq., Nelson, delivered judgment in this case as follows : — In deciding this case I propose to state . first the facts as I find them proved, and then the conclusions of law to be drawn therefrom. 1. The Government have two forms for use in payment of claims within the goldfields boundaries—one a certificate, and the other a voucher or receipt form. - 2. That these "certificate forma" are distributed freely and indiscriminately for general use. 3. That these certificates are signed by an officer of the Government, and are given or sent to the person who has performed the work. 4. That these certificates purport to certify that a particular individual has performed work of a certain value, and that the expenditure was necessary for the public service. They appear to me to v ; be in effect just such documents as an : architect gives to a contractor during the progress and on completion of the works. 5. That the claimant either takes or < sends this certificate to .the Provincial Treasury ; the Government, if satisfied of the justice of the claim, order it to be paid. The Auditor then attaches his authority, and the. Superintendent hia ( -warrant. A voucher form is then prepared, which the claimant signs on receiving the money giving up the" certificate," which is attached to the voucher as a record. 6. That the document now claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant is a " certificate form " signed by A. Dudley Dobson, Provincial Engineer, and certifies that certain work performed by plaintiff was necessary for the public service. 7. That it was sent to plaintiff in an envelope directed to him through the Post Office. 8. That it was the custom of the Government, up to and including the date when this cause of action arose, to return . all such certificates to the. claimants, whether minuted by any member of the Provincial Government or not, in, all cases where payment of the claim was ; disputed. • 9. That payment of plaintiff's claim ; was disputed. ■ 10. That on 6th October plaintiff called at the Provincial Treasury with the certificate and demanded payment. That, the ; ...; certificate was examined by defendant ,-| and payment refused. That the defendant ' laid the certificate on the public counter. That plaintiff took it up and put it in his pocket. - '•■'- '■'; 11. That defendant subsequently caused the document to be taken, trom the plaintiff 's possession into his own. • 12. That he did so' believing it to be , his duty as Provincial Treasurer, and in' : *" ignorance of the established custom of the •- Government. From the above findings of fact I draw the following conclusion of law. 1. That the document came lawfully into possession, and is the property, ;of. ; ,, the plaintiff. „'.., : ' ' i| ' 2. That he had never parted, . nor in- - tended to part, with his property in it. „V 3. That defendant caused it to bere-.; : ■:.) moved from plaintiffs possession, and has :-- wrongfully retained it. '',; ' 4. That the value is one shilling. 5. That the Provincial Lawsuits' Act, 1858, does not apply to this case. Order. — That a warrant do issue to the bailiff of this Court commanding him i?i to seize the specific chattel, and 1 that de- - fendant do pay L 3 6s, costs of these proceedings. \ r