£15,000 FOR AN IDEA

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 181, 28 April 1922, Page 8

£15,000 FOR AN IDEA

MR. LYSNAR’S HARBOUR SCHEME CASE BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL An appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Reed, in tho, case Gisborne Harbour Board v. George Henry Lysnar, of Gisborne, farmer and retired solicitor, was heard in the Court of Appeal yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Stringer. The claim stated that on May 28, 1917, an agreement was made between Lysnar and the Gisborne Harbour Board, setting forth that Lysnar had a scheme for the construction of a harbour for Poverty Bay, and was willing to communicate the same to the board, giving full plans and details. If at any time the board should adopt these plans or ideas, or any part of them, the board was to remunerate Lysnar by such amount as might seem r-'asonable: but this remuneration was not to be less than £1 per cent., calculated on the cost of carrying out the scheme. . . , A ■- . Mr. Justice Reed’s judgment, against which the appeal was lodged, stated, inter alia: Lysnar’s plans were submitted to the boa.-d and a commission of engineers considered forty schemes. The agreement was executed between the board and Lysnar, and it was a condition of tho contract that the scheme was one suck as had never previously baen placed before the board. Eventually the board adopted a scheme of Mr. Leslie Reynolds, C K, but it was contended by Lysnar that Bevnolds’s scheme was substantially his. The judgment held that the fact that Lysnar was not an engineer was not important, if he gave the board what engineers could not give. Ho held it was within the powers of the board to make such a contract, which, the judgment proceeded to say, complied with all the formalities required bv Statute. The agreement was, in his opinion, a binding contract on both parties, but the board oould not pay Lysnar more than tho fl per cent, stipulated. . Mr Mvers (for Messrs. Crisn and Crisp, Gisborne) appeared for the appellant board, and Mr. Burnard (for Messrs. Burnard and Bull, Gisborne) for the respondent. The whole day was occupied byaddresses bv connsM. For the knnrd Mr Mvers contended that tne Sn of tho Public Works Act rflatinr to such transactions, was definite!' mandatory for tenders m the large sums to be expended by such Mr Burnard had rot finished his reply when the Court rose. The hearing will be continued at 10.30 tins morning.