A HARBOUR SCHEME

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 154, 25 March 1922, Page 14

A HARBOUR SCHEME

DISPUTE AS TO NOVELTY By Telegraph—Press association. Gisborne, March 23. The Supreme Court was occupied today in hearing an application for a dodaratory judgment on the question whether the harbour scheme prepared by George H. Lysnar contains the element of novelty. The Harbour Board contends it doos not, and that therefore it is not liable to pay Lysnar remuneration in accordance with an agreement between them. The board recently adopted a scheme propounded by Leslie Reynolds, which Lysnar claims is practically his scheme. The proceedings were of a formal, technical nature.

Leslie Reynolds was cross-examined at length, and contended that Lysnar’s scheme was not novel, as in 1892 he forwarded to the board a plan which contained the essential principle adopted by Lysnar. Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineei, Wellington, testified that he had examined the various plans and reports, and had not been able to discover anything novel in harbour construction in Lvsnar’s plan. It would not be nossible for anyone to proceed with harbour construction on the material provided by Lysnnr. , 'Mr. Burnard, counsel for the respondent (Lysnar), said that he proposed to call a number of witnesses in Wellington. Mr. Divers, who appeared for the applicant board, suggested that Hi« Hcnour refer the to the Court ot Appeal, subieet to Dlr. Burnard’s Tight in the meantime te call evidence in Wellington. ~ , Hfo Honour agreed to Mr. Myers s suggestion.