MANAWATU GORGE ROAD AND BRIDGES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3041, 30 March 1917, Page 9

MANAWATU GORGE ROAD AND BRIDGES

A MATTER OF MAINTENANCE WELLINGTON CITY INTERESTED. In the Supremo Court yesterday morning; Chief Justico Sir Robert Stout, Mr." Justioe Chapman, and His Honour Sir Jolm Dennis ton heard argument upon a. case stated under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908, for tho decision of tlib Court upon a question of law.. Tho question ■ arose in the matter of a commission ..appointed to inquire into and report on tho maintenance of ! that portion of tho Manawatu Gorge Road in the Counties of Kairanga and Pahiatua; also tho control and maintenance of ' tho Manawatu Gorge bridges in' the Oroua. County and on the boundaries between the Woodyille and Pahiatua Counties. In the statement of the case the following facts ivero sot out:—Certain preliminary meetings were held by certain of the bodies which had to contribute 'to • the maintenance of tho above-mentioned road and bridges. As a result of these meetings, and as a result, of deliberations of all tho Commissioners appointed on September 2, 1916, and the .Commission which sat at' Palmerston on October 11. 1916, it was tentatively decided that the following local authorities should be cited:— Country, Councils: Akitio, - Daimovirke, Eketahuna, Hawko's Bay, Kairanga, Kiwitea, Manawatu, Oroua,, Pahiatua, Ilarigitikei, Waipawaj Waibotara, Wangamii, Woodvilte. Borough Councils: Dannevirke, Feilding, I'oxton, Hastings, Marton, Masterton: Napier, Pahiatua, Palmorston North, Wanganui, Wellington, )Voodville. Town Boards: Gonvillo and Castlecliff.

The" following contentions had been raised on behalf of. the Wellington City Council'and on behalf ofLthe Wanganui Borough Council:—(l) That in , order to/dotermine what districts it is equitable should 1 contribute itowards the cost of maintaining a portion of the road under Seotion 109 of the Public Works Act, 1908, the Commissioners should be guided by the wording of Section 119, • sub-Section (2) of the ' PublicWorks: Act; 1908. (2) That", in determining Tinder Section 120 of the Public Works Act, 1908, what looal authorities '■ should be required to contribute to tho cost of maintaining, repairing, improving, or reconstructing the said bridges, the Commissioners should be guided by tho provisions of Section 119, sub-Section (2) of' the Public Works Act, 1908, andthat no local auJ thority. should be required'to contribute undorj'the ijaid Section 120 that could not bo.required,to contribute under the said Section 119. (3) None of the local authorities heretofore required to contribute were local authorities in respect of districts situated more than 25 miles from the road and bridgos. Tho city, of Wellington is distant moro than 100 miles from the road' and bridges. The' Borough of Wanganui and tho town districts of Castlecliffo and Gonvillo are situated more than 50 miles from tho road and bridges. Tho'quostion for the opinion of the Court was: Was oither of the last two contentious correct?

Mr. John O'Shca appeared for the Wellington City Council and the Borough of .Wanganui; Mr. M. Myers for tho Pahiatua County Counbil. After hearing argument the Court reserved iits-' decision. RESERVED JUDCMENTS. ' .A PAMWERSHIP MATTER; ; Two reserved judgments were delivered in tho'Supreme Court by His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. The;first case was that of Hamilton Gilmer v. tho Public Trustee, in which Mr. J: L. Stout appeared for the plain-tiff-and Mr. Hay for the defendant. Tho matter.for decision arose out of partnership accounts 'ordered ,* to bo taken botween the plaintiff and the estate of Allan Maguiro, deceased, and the; only point ■in disputo was whether Maguire's estate should bo charged in accountiwith air item arising out of a land speculation. The ovidence : of tho accountants as to tho speculation showed! that the property was purchased on August 20,1900, that the plaintiff found tho wholo of tho purchase money, amounting to ; £2000, that lie did not receive any '.reimbursement from tho deceased, and that, when the proporty was'sold ho gave tho deceased bis own cheque for half ther proceeds. It was contended for*the defondant that the estate did not'owe anything to the plaintiff in connection with the deal., His Honour decided that there was no ground for presuming that the sum alleged to 'he owing by tho deceased's estate had been paid, and accordingly found that, the plaintiff had not been reimbursed that item. LEASE WITH -OPTION OF PUll- ••■■-• ■-.-.-: CHASE;: -,';' The second case decided by His Honour was one which was argued on February 23 and 26 last. Tho plaintiff was Robert Wiggins Southeo : (represented'by Mr. M. Myers), and the defendant Albert Hardy Fihnis (represented by Mr. Hadfield). The proceed; iiigs related to. the rights;of the paities under a lease given■ by the-defen-dant, and vested iu the plaintiff. Under it the plaintiff had the; option to purchase, subject to his _ giving not less thau six months' notice, to expire on a rent day. Tho lease expired oil March 1, 1917, and as January 21 was the last rent day for the' purpose _of giving notice it was necessary to givo the notico'not less than six months.before then. There had.been,certain correspondence between the parties, and one question was whether this correspondence amounted to notico on tho part of the plaintiff of his intention to exercise tho option of purchase. Alternatively, if the correspondence did not amount to notice, it was contended for the. plaintiff that'the notice was waived by the defendant. The most, important point of public intorest was an alternative question which arose undor tho Mortgages Extension. It was claimed! for the plaintiff that, if notice had not been given, the term of the lease and the time for giving notice were both alike extended by the provisions of tho Act. , ■ . , ~ In giving judgment, His .Honour held that ono of the letters given by the plaintiff did amount to notice or.'his intention to exercise the option.. Although depiding for the plaintiff:. on that point, His Honour .also considered the effect of the Mortgages Extension Act, and held that if necessary the plaintiff was entitled to rohef also under that Act.