TE HAPARA ROAD CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4156, 5 February 1916, Page 6

TE HAPARA ROAD CASE.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED. Judgment was delivered by Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., yesterday in the case of the Superintendent of workers’ Dwellings (represented by Mr. Nolan) v. F. J. Single and others, a' claim for £36, less £l6 (paid since proceedings were commenced), leaving a balance of £2O, in respect of certain road work done by the Labor Department in connection with a (block of land at Te Hapara, under the Workers Dwelling Act. 'After going through the evidence on both sides, his Worship gave the following decision:—• “The evidence of the plaintiff is most positive that he did not bind himself to make any allowance to tho defendant in connection with the formation of Andrew Street, and his evidence is corroborated by that of Mr. Westbrooke, who states that he was present during the whole of the interview between the plaintiff and two of the 'defendants, Messrs. Andrew and Single, and that lie did not hear any promise of an allowance of £2O, and that had 1 such a promise been made he must have heard it. Mr. Andrew, con cross-examination, says: ‘The new agreement amounted l to a statement by the superintendent that ho would get the £2o.’ There is very little in conflict between-the evidence of the plaintiff and that of the • defendant Single. Mr. Single does not say that the plaintiff made a definite promise, to pay £2O towards the cost of Andrew Street. I have read tho correspondence and t(he other exhibits produced, a.nd am unable to find anything inconsistent with tlio plaintiff’s evidence. I am not .satisfied upon the evidence that the plaintiff did promise to allow £2O towards the cost of Andrew Street, sand that being so judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £36 0s 9di, less £l6 0s 9d paid to the plaintiff, with costs £6 135.”