Timaru Appeal Case.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 142, 27 April 1901, Page 3

Timaru Appeal Case.

Ohkistchukck, April 25

i At the Supreme Court to day, an [ appeal ca.se, Palariat V. Budd and I It.ally was heard, from ihe deci-siou oi. r,he ritipLHiJia,:/.' Magistrate fit Timaru, in a c.iiu ar/sntg out of th:- catering and (Mutton rights for the? volunteer cauip at tba Levels in 1900. The appeal was 0:1 law and facts. Colonel PeOton gave orders to hold the cai.ep a£ the . L-.'V.'-'is. Colonel Gordon, Captains Palaire;, and Gi'lie; and Colonel Webb went 1.0 Tiiij.u'u a<id lor the catering for the Ea.-u.er Encampment Colonel Bailey was instru'ettd" by Coionel Gordon to call for tenders for the caieiing Willi the understanding that the successful tenderer got the canteen rights. Colontl Webb drew up (he advertisement which was published. Several witnesses under stood that the acceptance of the c-';ni;r w.im luft with .Colouel Bailey Colonel Bailey accepted the loenur oi Mr P. Keiily for the c'ateen a.id of A. Budd for the catering, withoii'- iirst I consulting Colonel Gordon. Colon d I Gordon, 'thr..:t■■.>h Captain L'.ii-irf, g. Ivo Colonel ij.-.ilfy oni'is -..<■ o-mc?. . 'the '.'..-> iti,-,c-i. Colo ltd Gordon trie .' graphed to Cu'oue! Bailey t'o .eaivco! ' t'eoutraci.3, and a levies of telegram* p idst-d between Captain Palairet (for Colonel Gordon), and Colonel Bailey. Bark:, of Chri-;!church, got botii contracts. In ttie case at Timaru rl>Magistrate gave judgment for Budd and Reilly. Mr Joynt, for Mr Reilly, contended that all the officers assenud to _ an advertisement, but Captain Palairet had been the actual breaker of ttie contract. Colonel Bailey's acceptance of Reilly's tender was the acceptance; by all the officers, whose agent he was. • •; For Mr Budd, Mr Raymond con j t :iided that Captain Palair-t bad been the most active of tin parties concerned,-and had taken bit huyself.. to give the. contract to Burke and ■ cancel the other?.. He further contended that the officers were precisely in the same case as a club, • and each was liable as a camp of - voiunteers,Mr Harper, for the appellant contended that' the officers of the mihtia were officers holding under the Crown, and Captain Palairet was acting under orders, disobedience of .which meant dismissal... His Hunor reserved liis decision.