THE KILBIRNIE HIGHWAY BOARD IN COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 51, 19 September 1882, Page 2

THE KILBIRNIE HIGHWAY BOARD IN COURT.

» A O&80 of considerable interest was heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. E. Hardoastle, B.M , sitting in civil jurisdiction. It was an aotion brought by Eobert Car swell, outer, of Newtown, against the Kilbirnio Highway Board to recover J2ll 2s, representing 18} days' carting, &c, at 12s per day. Mr. J. H Shaw appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brown (of Messrs. Olhver, Holland and Brown), on behalf of the defendant Board. From the evidenoe addaoed, it appeared that the plaintiff waß instraoted to perform tha work in question by Mr. Compton, the warden for No. 2 Ward in the Kilbirnie Highway District. ' During the progress of the work, which occupied from the 9th August.to the Bth inst., Mr. Comptoo attended from time to time for the purpose of superintending it. Several of the other wardens, inoludiDg Mr. 0. Hendrey, the Chairman of the Board, also occasionally appetred on the scone while the work was going on, and, according to the cats for the plaintiff, neither of them made any objection to the continuance of the job ; but when the plaintiff's aooonnt, endorsed by Mr. Compton, was presented, the Board repudiated that gentleman's right to authoriso the work on behalf of the Board, and refused to pay it. Ihe witnesses examined for tha plaintiff comprised ihe plaintiff himself, Meaßia. 1 homas Twicer, G. D. Hewitt, and John Compton. The last-named witness deposed that at a meeting of the Board, held prior to the undertaking of the work, he was asked by the Board to " see and gat it done," and he consented to do co. In answer to cross-examining conn-el, Mr. Compton said the work was not authorised,, so far as he was aware, by a resolution of the Board. He could not say exactly who lt~was that asked him to get the work done, but he was certain he received his authority from the Board. His Worship remarked that the Board was merely an incorporeal owation of the law. The witness afterward stated that he believed it was Mr Hendrey who had asked him, at a meeting of. the Board, to get the work done, and this was the course that had been commonly followed. Mr. Brown submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, on the ground that no contract whatever had been shown on behalf of the Board. Mr. Hardoastle, however, deoided to call upon the Board for their defence, the present case, he observed, apparently ranking as one of those exceptions to the general rule, that a Corporation could only contract under the general Beal. Mr. Hendrey then denied that the Board had given Mr. Compton any authority to get the preient job done, but he admitted that they had authorised a day's cartage. Messrs. M'Lonnan and Agate, members of the Boa»d, were also examined for the defence, and Beveral of the previous witnesses having been recalled, hit Wewhip gave judgment for the Board. Mr. Hardoastle thought Mr. Compton had an authority in the matter, but that h». had exceeded it The boundary between the lawful authority and wrongful excels was indistinguishable, otherwise he would have been able to give judgment for the plaintiff for a certain amount. The judgment carried the usual costs, £2 3s.