THE TIMARU ENCAMPMENT CASES.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10760, 13 September 1900, Page 3

THE TIMARU ENCAMPMENT CASES.

JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OFFICERS,

At the Magistrate's Court, Timaru, yes- | terday, judgment was given in the cases I brought by Patrick Reilly, hotelkeeper, Timaru, versus Colonel Bailey, Colonel Gordon and Captain Palairet, claim £200; I and Alfred Budd, baker and caterer, claim £148 9s 7d. Mr Joynt (Christchurch) and ! Mr Raymond (Timaru) were counsel for the | plaintiffs; Mr George Harper (Christchurch) appeared for Captain Palairet, Mr Crawford (Christchurch) for Colonel Bailey, and Mr Rolleston (Timaru), for Colonel Gordon. Reilly's clahn- was for damages for a breach "of contract relating to the canteen at the encampment of volunteers held at the Levels, near Timaru, at Easter, and Budd's claim was also based on a breach of contract relating to the catering at the camp. Mr C. Wray, S.M., in giving judgment, said that the first question to be decided was that of the liability of the deendants, whether in act the contracts were entered into by them as public servants on behalf of the Crown, or not. He had come to the conclusion that in neither case had it been proved that a contract was made on behalf of the Crown under lawful fmthority, ex- - press or implied. With regard to the catering contract no such supplies were required on behalf of the Government. The execut'iva department made an allowance *to each officer and man at the Easter volunteer encampment, leaving it to them to supply themselves with provisions as they might require. As to the canteen contract, the clause in the volunteer regulations for the establishment of canteens ap- . peared to be the merely permissive (291);

another clause (299) required a conditional lioensa under the Licensing Acts from the Licensing Committee, but "it could not be argued that the committee, for instance,, in granting Bueh a license would be liable for a breach of contract. The proceeds of the sale of the privilege to keep the canteen for the sale of liquovs to the volunteers and their friends was to be applied to reduce the cost of the catering to the men generally, and not to the public funds. In Reilly's contract for the canteen, as regarded the preliminary expenses, he was not satisfied. as to the claim of £40, which on the evidence adduced, appeared to him excessive, and he had reduced it by onehalf ; the work was not completed, and part payment seemed to have been made by Mr Burke. As to the profits, he thought that £102 was a fair estimate, from which had to bo deducted the sum of £52 -payable for the privileges. Thia would leave £36 for expenses and £50 for profit, or £86 altogether, for which he gave the plaintiff judgment with costs. With regard to Build's contract for catering, he could only arrive at an approximate estimate a_ to what he actually suffered, guided by what expenses a prudent business man should have incurred under the circumstances. The judgment in this case was for the plaintiff for £60 and costs.

Mr Raymond, for plaintiffs, asked that the question of costs be allowed to stand over for a week, and Mr Rolleston; fendants, concurred, and. intimated also that he would consult his principals on the question of appeal.