COUNTY COUNCIL’S CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 June 1922, Page 6

COUNTY COUNCIL’S CLAIM.

KURAPETE BRIDGE WORK. PLAINTIFFS NON-SUITED. In the Inglewood Magistrate’s Court yesterday Mr. A. M._ Mowlem, S.M., delivered judgment in the case in which the Inglewood County Council claimed » £.30 from Frederick Bracegirdle, a settler on the Everett Road. The case was heard about two months ago and concerned an alleged guarantee by six settlers on the Everett ’Road to bear the cost of erecting a bridge over the Kurapete to such an extent as the cost exceeded the loan of £2300 raised, providing their individual liability did not exceed £3O. The work was carried out. and as the cost exceeded the amount of loan moneys in hand, the council therefore claimed the full extent of the settlers’ alleged liability. The settlers refused to pay, and the council brought a test case against one of them—Frederick Bracegirdle. Reviewing, in the course of a lengthy judgment, the agreement entered into betw T een the council and the settlers concerned, His Worship stated: It was understood that the board (the Inglewood County Council was then the Moa Road Board) was to try by all means to clear the six settlers who signed the agreement. It was suggested that the Government might give a further grant, and this was one of the avenues mentioned at the time

No doubt the agreement was unfortunately worded, but if to “safeguard” means “to protect,” and if “liquidated” means to be “repaid,” then it appears to me the document is quite intelligible. Should the board then be unable to obtain money from some other source to <Jov.ef the then deficiency, these settlers (including the defendant) were to safeguard the board in the matter of any deficit or to protect the board to the extent of that deficit, limited, in the case of each signatory, to £3O. But it is clear, in fact admitted, that the board did obtain money from some other source than from the settlers. Subsequently .... the board received from the Government two separate subsidies of £2OO each, and though it is true that the cost of the work had increased by a greater amount than these subsidies, yet as it appears to me in the evidence the receipt of these two subsidies was in-' tended to be included in ’the words “other source” which the document

speaks of, and I hold accordingly.' For this reason, therefore, I hold that the plaintiff must be non-suited. It is necessary to make it clear that I do not hold that the document is a guarantee. It does not appear t> me that it is. but assuming it to.be so, then there has been such an alteration in the position and such a variation of the circumstances as in my opinion are sufficient to prevent' plaintiff from recovering.”

The plaintiff was non-suited with costs amounting to £5 Is 6d.