DESIGNING A HARBOR.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 March 1922, Page 5

DESIGNING A HARBOR.

SEQUEL IN SUPREME COURT. QUESTION OF NOVELTY. By Telegraph.—Press Asfii.—Copyright. Gisborne, March 23. The Supreme Court was occupied hearing an application for a declaratory judgment on the question whether the harbor scheme prepared by George H. Lysnar contained an element of novelty. The Harbor Board contends that it does not, and that therefore it is not liable to pay Lysnar remuneration for it in accordance with the agreement between them. The board recently adopted the scheme propounded by Mr. Leslie Reynolds, which Lysnar claims is practically his scheme. The proceedings were of a formal technical nature.

Mr. Leslie Reynolds, cross-examined at length, contended that Lysnar’s scheme was not novel, as in 1892 he forwarded to the board a plan which contained the essential principle adopted by Lysnar. Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineer, Wellington, gave evidence that he had exammed various plans and reports and had not been able to discover anything novel in harbor construction in Lysnar’s plan. It would not be possible for anyone to proceed with harbor construction on the material provided by Lysnar. COURT OF APPEAL TO DECIDE. Gisborne, Last Night. After further evidence in the Harbor Board ease, Mr. Burna rd. counsel for the respondent (Mr. Lysnar) said he proposed to call a number of witnesses in Wellington. Mr. Myers, for the applicant board,, suggested that His Honor should refer the case to the Court of Appeal, subject to Mr. Burnard’s right in the meantime to call evidence in Wellington. His Honor agreed to Mr. Myers’ suggestion.