BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ENGINEER.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17986, 1 February 1924, Page 10

BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ENGINEER.

CLAIM FOR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE.

'{PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGBAiI.)

MASTERTON, January. 31

What is probably the first case of its kind ever heard in New Zealand, and one which affects every local body and engineer, was before the Magistrate's Court to-day, when the Masterton Borough Council prooeeded against Charles Edward Evans, engineer, Hastings, formerly engineer to the Masterton borough, to recover damages amounting to £BS 10s for alleged negligence and unskilled supervision while in the employ of the Council.' Mr H. Mackenzie Douglas appeared for the Council and Mr A. W. Blair for the defendant. Evidence called for the plaintiffs showed that it was Evans's duty to supervise the installation of the new septic tank and pipe lines, Evans's work was continually being criticised, and he was asked to resign. Months after the completion of the septic tank there was a subsidence of 20 yards of earth, and new, engineer ordered the work to be opened up. The pipe lilies were found to be untrue to line and grade, and many were broken and not jointed, though the specifications provided that they be jointed with cement. The whole job, it was alleged, displayed faulty material and workmanship. * Evans deposed thai he was engaged to succeed James Archer, whose defalcations of the Masterton borough funds while in the dual capacity of town clerk and engineer, resulted in a term of detention. Archer had laid the major portion of the work before defendant took over, and owing to the nature of the ground, he had left pipes open to absorb the subsoil water, thereby reducing the pressure on the tank. The defendant followed this course till the completion of the job, and the Council had been reimbursed by a refund from the contractors' price for cement not used. Mr Blair satirically commented that there had been a considerable amount of needless expenditure in the borough and the Council desired to make someone a scapegoat. The Bench replied that the matters would be dealt with, as they were, no matter what the motive was. Decision was reserved. . . .