RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 274, 1 November 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

[Before L. Bkojld, Esq., R.M.] Flettv. Webster. Action to recover JEI 18a 3d, amonnt of rate due for one-half of the actual cost of the construction of 25$ square yards of footway in front of defendant's premises in Tra falgar-street. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Atkinson for the defendant. 11. V. Gully, Town Clerk, produced the minute book of the Council, Bhowing that on tho 4th July, 1879, the Council authorised the concreting of the footway, the owners of the contiguous properties to pay half the cost. W. Lightfoot, City Surveyor, said that the footpath in queation was concreted in July, 1879. Thejath was picked up to a depth of four inches, and relaid with concrete. The proportions were one cask of cement to a cubic yard of fine gravel, or Bto 1 . The cement cost £1 per cask, the gravel 2s 6d per yard, mixing and carting 4s Cd. A cubic yard made 9 superficial yards, and the cost was 3s per yard. There were 25£ yards on the portion of the path in question. The concrete bad been done over a year, and tad lasted very well. Cross-examined: The work was not of an experimental character. The strength of the concrete is the same all the way down the street. In one part the Burface was broken by boys jumping on to it before it was set. I was to a certain extent learning as I weqt along 1 by trying' a finer kind of

gravel. I have made no concrete footpaths besides that in Trafalgar street. I have made floors. Re-examined: I laid out the work for the men and had to take levels. John McKenna, foreman of the works, deposed td the manner in which the work bad been done. George Blackett, Resident Engineer, had bad some experience in the use of concrete. He had inspected that in front of Mr Webster's property, and it appeared to be a good hard cement concrete path. Eight to one was a fair proportion for such work, and the cost, 3s per yard, A reasonable clurge. William Flett, Collector of Hates, produced tbe notice served upon tho defendant, This closed the ca9e for tbs plaintiff. Mr Atkinson, in opening the case for the defendant, said that the reason for Opposing the claim was that there was a good path previously, better, indeed, than the present one. Tbe Corporation were merely experimenting, and had probably learnt something by experience} but this should not be gained at the expense of the ratepayers. Iv addition to this there were certain technical objc ions which he proceeded to point out, the principal one being that there had not been a " laying out " of the footpath. Thomas Muucaster, a resident in Trafalgarstreet, said that tbe present footpath was a deal worse than it was be/oro it was concreted.. Cross-examined : The old path was a Btmo'h gravel one. He had not paid bis share yet, and objected to the Corporation experimenting at bis expense. W. Fletcher and J. Hounsell gave similar evidence. Mr Atkinson said this was a perfectly fair case to bring into Court. The concreting was simply a whim on the part of certain Councillors, and not for the public advantage. The A6"t never intended that a Corporation should experiment at the expense of the ratepayers, and this was a very appropriate and wholesome manner of checking this sort of .thing. The powers under tbe Act were Very great, and even if they kept within those powers a Corporation might be very oppresbive. Mr Pitt said that even if the path had been in a better condition prior to being concreted, that was no argument for the defence. The witnesses who had given their evidence for tbe defence were in the same plight as tbe defendant, and would be called upon to pay their share if this were decided in favor of the plaintiff. He then proceeded to rebut the technical objections raised by Mr Atkinson. His Worship said that he should take time to consider his judgment.