LEGAL ADVICE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5720, 30 July 1879, Page 3

LEGAL ADVICE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE HEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sib, —By the papers a few days since, I learnt that at a Council meeting our worthy Mayor uttered a few pertiueut remarks aneut “ lawyers’bills.” “Whose fault is it?” is a query put oft by ratepayers, and as frequently by others, ratepayers on the one part, shareholders on the other ; in their former capacity bitterly complaining that they know not where the money goes ; .certainly not in improvements, and in the other fondly hoping reasonable dividends will enable them to tide over the present depression. An institution, call it company if you please, but one that does Wellington the highest possible credit appears likely to be seriously injured. And by what ? Simply the exercise of a little common sense which may prove appeals to the law unnecessary. I mean the Wellington Tramway Company. Only on Friday last a special jury returned an unanimous verdict for full amount claimed against the company by Mr. Samuel Brown, the Tramway Company’s late eontraotor, the sum in' dispute, as rendered by Mr. Brown, being nigh £2OOO. The people of Wellington are not prejudiced against the tramway ; far from it, but rather have supported it in the most liberal manner, and speak highly of its convenienee and general usefulness. Yet again arises the que tion, “ Why these losses !”—by it meaning, why appeal to the law with all its attendant evils 1 A remark was made by a director of the tramway at the conclusion of the case, that ail the engineers in Wellington were against the company, and consequently on the side of the contractor, but in terms not by any means complimentary to the profession, This remark struck me as being very peculiar, and, if true, raising a fine point for argument as to what constitutes an engineer, as it was impossible to overlook the fact that the company’s engineer, a qualified gentleman, and one who not only instructed the company’s witnesses, but was well able to throw a bright light on the matters in dispute, was in attendance each day, in the pay of the company, and yet was never called upon substantially to assist the defendants by evidence on oath.—l am, &c.. Shareholder.