R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3494, 25 April 1890, Page 2

R.M.COURT.

M A STERTON-THURSDAY. (Before Colonel Roberts, R. M,) The Whareama Road Case, Mr Moore, plaintiff in the oas against the inhabitants of the Whareama Road District, continued his evidence under cross-examination by Mr PownalL He had appealed to the Audit Department to stop the payment to Mr Girdwood, but that department did not comply with his request. He had been given the work to do because it was cheaper than by letting it by contract, Had taken no contract from the Board. He got the work in Bums of £2O to avoid infringing the Act relating to contracts. In answer to Mi Pownall.plaintiff made reference to his attitude in Beveral other matters rotating to the case. Mr Pownall-thcn asked for a nonsuit. He had several grounds for making such an application. In the first place plaintiff had split his claim. Socondly, the Court bad no jurisdiction in the case, as, if & decision were given a breach of the rules ot title would be effected. The purpose for which the monoy was expended was also unlawful, as part of it was spent on the property of defendant. Ho took exception to the legality of the resolution, because it was moved and voted upon by Mr Moore, who was a person interested. The interest should at least be struck off the claim. Lastly, he contended that ut the time of the resolution there was no special order, as required by tho Local Bodies Loans Act, 1886. In reply, Mr Beard submitted that plaintiff was claiming under a special resolution of the Boird. Plaintiff might make other demands, but they were distinot, and nothing to do with the present case. He failed to see that the present was a contract with the Board. The resolution was that authority only be given, The' Board were absolutely prevented from making a contract with plaintiff to carry out the work. MrMooro had frame] his resolution, asking for £2O for work done under a misconception of the meaning of the Act. With regard to the question of title, he would refer simply to the decision of Justices' Eiohmond and Johnston in the case Masterton Road Board v Mawley. If the question of title was raised, it should be tout fide, and the present was not. Mr Moore was certainly entitled to payment for works authorised by the Board, whether the loan for such work was carried or not, It .was a matter of indifference whether a speoial order was or was not made. The Board was quite at liberty to give authority for the carrying out of any work, . Mr Pownall was about to again reply, but Mr Beard objeoted, A heated discussion then ensued between counsol, with the result that Mr Pownall was not permitted to reply. As the Bench would not give a decision on the nonsuit points, evidence was called for the defence, Richard R, Meredith deposed that at the time of the subject matter of this aotion he was.chairman to the Whareama Road Board. A meeting was held at .Waioronga in September, at whioh he was Chair, man, A petition was presented-by Mr Moore with reference to the borrowing of £2OO. He stated at meeting that he would not sign the petition, as he objeoted to the wording of it. Other settlers also objected to the borrowing of £2OO for expenditure on tho district road or a deviation. Mr Moore consented to the extraction of the obnoxious words, On September 16th the petition for tho borrowiug £2OO was adopted by the Whareama Road Board. The loan was to be expended on the old district road, The resolution could not have referred to Dawson's line, as there was no' bridges there, On October 20th, at- a meeting over whioh he presided, he wrote to the engineer, asking him to draw up plans for the expenditure of tho £2OO loan, The Board received tho estimates of the old district road on November 22nd, The £2OO was not originally borrowed for Rawson's line.

Mr Meredith was examined at considerable length, the case concluding at about 6 p.m. At that hour the Bench announced that its decision would be reserved till next Court day, Bth May.