R.M. COURT, CARLYLE.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 491, 14 February 1880, Page 2

R.M. COURT, CARLYLE.

Friday. —(Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.)T, Lynch v T. Quinlivan, claim £9 15s 6d for' wages ; judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and 8s coats. T. Quinlivan y 0. McKitterick, claim £l4 ; judgment for plaintiff for £9, and £2 8s costs. W. Dale (chairman Patea County Council) v.F.J. Gane (member of Council). This was an action brought to test the legality of the defendant holding his seat and at the same time working on the County road. The plaintiff, in opening the case, said if Councillors were allowed to work on contracts let by the Council, great difficulties might arise, for where two tenders wore oven in amount a Councillor might vote for the contractor who would give the largest pay. Also that the Foreman of Works would be placed in a very peculiar position. The contractors (Messrs Mercer arid Sangster) gave evidence to the effect that F. J. Gaue had been working on their contract, as also had his brother ; but that Mr E. M. Honeyfield was the gentleman with whom the arrangements about payment had been made. £1 a day was charged by Mr Honeyfield for his horses and dray. Tlie drays that F. J. Gane worked would have to be paid for. The County Foreman also gave evidence

The dofendant stated that tie had certainly been at work on the County road, but that it was merely to break iu a colt for Mr Honeyfield, and that he had received no payment whatever for his services. Ho did not know anything about Ins brother. They were only partners in some things, and both did as they liked.

Tbe Bench considered that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had received payment for work done, and dismissed the case with costs.