R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1335, 24 March 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

"' & < >,. \JL± *tS p [Bef6reXS.WUELL,E.M.]j| I i Drummond and Beaufort v Donald l McKenzie-Claim v i6s is 6d. Mr Beard for plaintiff an'd Mr Bunny for defendant, (adjourned case). Mr Beaufort deposed thaMhe-plan of the survey was ready to hand over j at the tiraethaUhe defendant.offered to-pay the money. "'He would not 1 hand over the plan because it would I not do for the Land Transfer Act. He | could not guarantee the old work in it. I He did not consider the plan worth a I half-crown stamp) The plan might do for aconveyance,"but it would not bo sufficient for tholand Transfer office. Defendant saw the plan, it was then witness told hinfthat the plan would not do for the 'Land Transfer Act. Vyheuthemap was prepared witness did not know that it -Was required under the Land Transfer, Act. He was instructed to take the old.work a? correct. Did not ; 4now..tnat a'conveyance was absolutely useless•, unless it were under the Transfer Act. He had been told two years ago not to accept a survey made ;:made by the surveyor who Bid.the" old.work. Witness subseqnentiy,prepaved'?a map for the Land .TranafeivAofc'.'He'did'so because the defendant required the map andbecatise he knew'that thefejwas an error in the old work. On.the46th of January lie completed a plan suitable for the Land Transfer Act. •rThought it would have cost tnbiie : than it did. He did.not iotimatewhafc it.would cost, ;he. could not estimate it. If-Hue.. original survey had been' correct it would have cost just the first account. The plan on the certificate of title was not any assistance at all.- Had not surveyed the whole, of the;land under ( *he, certificate of title. .Had had an intimation from,the Chief Surveyorijtfwt)the plan would be accepted. Had tendered the. plan to Mr ..McKenzie alJotifthe middle of J anuavy. The charges were under the usual rates. ■"' ''■'■■; • To Mr Beard: McEenzie'told me he wanted a plan that the Land Transfer office would accept."'He came and saw me at work and showed me some;: old boundary marks, McKenzie hainever offered to pay the whole account,, but offered to'pay the .£2B for the Second plan, He; would not take the-'-first plan at all.; If McKenzie hadiasked me at first .to prepare a plan' for. the Iransfer Act it would have cost more than I have charged now. I found both Wilkinson's and the Governmentsurveys wrong.

■ His Worship: Perhaps another surveyor will find yours wrong too 1 : Witness continued: McKenziekiiew I was going -on .with the survey and did not tell; me to stop. I informed him when 1 found the error, . Had received no instructions from the"; Government to make the survey, and did the work for McKenzie and no one elso, '. ''"'"""

To the .Court: When the attention of the Survey Department is called to an error it will usually correct it. T ; oMr,Bunny:'l told McKenzie this. 1 didjnot tell; Mm that itVas not worth his "while to employ, us, as thetiovernment would do it. To Mr Beard: The Government aK ways correct those errors by cheir own officers, and do not pay private sur T veyors to correct' therm

Thomas •Dmmmohd" deposed—He was .a surveyor, and was employed By Mr McKenzie, in connection with Mr. Beaufort, to dothe work now charged for. The:charges ( were,.fair, but the whole time was not cbarged.for; Had paid more than was set forth" ia-the bill of particulars,' ' After the cbm : ; pletiou of the first map,. went'to -Mr D. McKenzie' arid asked foracsettlemeni When ho told that, the first plan would not be acccp.-l ted, he said they must have'another, Ho told McKenzie they would; have to go over the old workman*!;he;.said,. " Very well, it .will have to be done," Saw McKenzie 'when the, second plan was prepared, when he said he would 1 not. pay till the plan was accepted % the Chief Surveyor. Said he wouldpay as soon as thistook place.' ; " ■•' To Mr Bunny: ; The Government did not; to his knowledge correct errors in surveys by private surveyors;. Did not tell McKenziethat the Government would pay for correcting, the error,; Knew' ; the plan was': no use to McKenzie for.the Land Ti'ansfer.Act, Told old Mv.'McKenzie sp.but he seemed to'iiisistr ilial it was. ' " ;

To Mr.Beard':' 1 Could not completethe second, plan without th'e-'work 'ddne in the first, ; .' :■ "" .":;';;.."'," ,'"

This was plaintiff's ; Mr Bunny submitted plaintiff should be non-suitedas they had not completed' the contract,' ~..,., ■;•...-. •.■■■ :

The evidence of :the defendant was 1 taken, and was to: the effect that He had said from 'the jirstjhat .he required - a plan for Land Transfer Act purposes; and he didnot not consider he; should pay for.the first plau which was useless to him, : '■;■'"'•''• : ' ' ••"'''''."'.

In giving, judgment, His Worship: held that as the work done in preparing the-first plan 'was necessary for the completion of the second,: the, plaintiffs, were entitled to recovery and ; he ; gave judgment for, amount and costs.