PLANS FOR HARBOR.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 5

PLANS FOR HARBOR.

A SCHEME FOR GISBORNE. SEQUEL IN COURT CASE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, April 27. The Appeal Court is hearing argument in the case Gisborne Harbor Board v. George Henry Lysnar, concerning the validity and interpretation of a document executed by the parties in 1917, under which Lysnar agreed to disclose to the board 'a cefFain novel idea for th'e construction of a harbor at Gisborne, in consideration of his receiving not less than one per cent, of the cost of carrying out the works. The board applied to the Supreme Court to determine whether the document constituted a contract binding on the board -for all time, and whether the board could pay to Lysnar any sum greater than the one per cent, mentioned. Vr. Justice Reed decided that the document was a contract, but was not binding for all time, and that the ■board” could not pay more than the percentage referred to. From this judgment the board appealed. The board also brought an action against Lysnar for the purpose of getting a comprehensive decision, claiming that Lysnar’s scheme was not novel and that the board had not adopted any scheme or idea of Lysnar’s. This action was removed to the Appeal Court for hearing with the appeal. Mr. Myers, appearing for the Harbor Board, said that if Lysnar’s claim was upheld he would be entitled to pavment from the board of the sum of £15,000, and the board had no power to spend the money for a mere scheme or idea. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. Myers, in continuation of his argument for the Harbor Board, dealt with various sections of the Harbors Act, 1908, dealing with the powers or a Harbor Board to enter into: contracts. This contract was not of the type into which a Harbor Board was empowered to enter. Section 57 of the Harbors Act made “a public tender” necessary in the case of any work undertaken by a board. There had been no public tender in connection with the agreement entered into with Lysnar and the scheme which he submitted to the Harbor Board. . . The Court at this stage indicated that, it desired to hear Mr. Barnard (for Lysnar) on the question of the necessity -for “a public tender. r. Burnard contended that section o 7 oi the Harbors Act did not make "a public tender” an essential in connection, with such a scheme as that submitted to the board by Lysnar. The section was not mandatory, but was merely directory. . ~ , At this stage the Court adjourned until to-morrow in order to give Mr. Burnard an opportunity of looking va further authority.