FEES OF ENGINEER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20425, 29 November 1929, Page 16

FEES OF ENGINEER.

CLAIM AGAINST ROAD BOARD.

ACCOUNTS FOR OVER £2OOO

LIST OF ITEMS REDUCED

The Mount Wellington Road Board (Mr. Towle) was the defendant before Mr. Justice Blair in the, Supremo Court yesterday in a claim for £2199 for professional services rendered. The plaintiff was Samuel Trevor Dibblo (Mr. Dickson and Mr Fiddes), who was formerly consulting engineer to the board. Ilis claim was in respect of services alleged to have been rendered in his capacity as consulting engineer to the board from 1925 to 1928 inclusive. There wero 31 items in the original claim, but a large proportion of theso was either abandoned or referred by agreement to arbitration.

| The board admitted that in some inistances the plaintiff was entitlod to bo : paid, but it disputed ihe reasonableness of the amount claimed. It paid into Court ,£268 in settlement of the claims, and it further counter-claimed for £56, alleged over-payment to plaintiff and for £65 for hire of a road roller. Mr. Dickson said the items to come before the Court had been reduced by negotiation to six or seven. It was for plaintiff to prove that he had been instructed to do the work for which he I claimed, and in the event of the t ouit | being satisfied that he was instructed the parties had agreed to refer to arbitration j the question of the amounts duo.

Work Done For Board. The plaintiff, a registered surveyor, said he was appointed engineer to tho Mount Wellington Road Board in November, 1924. He had prepared plans for bitumen work on two roads, which it was subsequently decided to lay down in concrete, so that tho plans were not actually used. He never agreed not to charge for that work. He was asking 15 guineas for a contour plan for a road at Sylvia Park, which was not gone on with. When ho resigned the board asked him to reconsider his decision, but he declined. Tho beard and he had not quarrelled. Mr. Dickson said their relations were quite friendly. Mr. Towle: Except for this, sir.' We say quite openly that Mr. Dibble never intended to charge for these items until he left the service of the board.

Witness explained another claim of 15 guineas for a master-scheme plan covering several subdivisions. For plans of access roads to th§ Mount Wellington station on the new line he claimed £l5B. An item of £4lO-represented 5 per cent, on a roading loan and subsidy, the expenditure of which he administered. There was a further claim of £49 for administering expenditure of loans. After plaintiff had closed his case His Honor said a case had not been made out in respect of t>wo of the items claimed. This left four items. Libel Case Recalled.

Mr. Towle admitted that the item for the road plan at Sylvia Park was a legitimate one to go to arbitration, reducing the number.'of disputed claims 'to three. He moved for a nonsuit in respect of two of these on the ground that no sufficient contract had been proved. The nonsuit point was reserved.- With regard to the third claim for plans of bitumen work, counsel argued that plaintiff had agreed not to charge for this. Evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's claims was given by Thomas Lloyd May, clerk - of the Mount Wellington Road Board until July, 1927. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Dickson as to feeling between himself and the plaintiff and as to a libel case which the plaintiff won. " I do" not think there is any Dibble party in Mount Wellington,"witness said, in answer to one question.

His Honor terminated this discussion by remarking that he did not want 4,0 try the Dibble-Richards case again After further evidence for the defence had been heard the hearing was adjourned until this morning.