FEES OF ENGINEER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20426, 30 November 1929, Page 16

FEES OF ENGINEER.

CLAIM FROM ROAD BOARD

NARROWED TO THREE ITEMS.

COURT SUSPENDS JUDGMENT

The hearing of the claim by Samuel Trevor Dibble, surveyor (Mr. Dickson and Mr. Fiddes), against the Mount Wellington Road Board (Mr. Towle), was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Blair

The plaintiff's claim for professional services as consulting engineer to t'ne board originally contained 31 items, totalling in all £2199, but these were largely reduced both by negotiation before the hearing and during the hearing. The board paid £268 into Court in settlement of the claims, and counter-claimed for £l2l for overpayment, and for hire of a road-roller. It was agreed that in cases where the Court held that the plaintiff had been instructed to do the work, the amount due should be referred to arbitration.

James Wood, who had been a member of the Mount Wellington Road Board for 20 years, said that the plaintiff gave it out at a meeting of .the board and also at a ratepayers' meeting that he would forego his fees on the bitumen road if the boara borrowed the extra money and made the road of concrete.

The Judge's Advantage. In cross-examination witness said that plaintiff did a lot of things for the board which he was not instructed to do. With reference to certain subdivisional plans charged for, His Honor took the view that the plaintiff was acting as a private individual for private individuals. Mr. Dickson urged that the work was in the interests of the board and of the district.

"I have the advantage that my view is taken and yours is not." said His Honor to Mr. Dickson. "That is the advantage I have, and the disadvantage you have." ■>

John William Hotham, mechanical engineer, previously a member of the Mount Wellington Road Board, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness that the plaintiff had undertaken to make no charge for the plans of bitumen work which was superseded by concrete. ilis Honor said that the claim had now been narrowed down to three items, the counter-claim being involved in the third item.

Change of Road Plans. In respect to the first item it was said, on behalf of the board, that when the change was made in the plans from bitumen to concrete the engineer assured the board that he would not charge for the bitumen-work plans, His Honor continued. The onus was on the plaintiff to establish his claim, and the weight of evidence on this point was definitely in favour of the defendant. He found against plaintiff for this item of £530.

With respect to the second item of £l5B for subdivisional planning the plaintiff had not established any liability. In respect to the third item of £l6B for supervision of loan expenditure, His Honor found that the board had agreed to pay on the basis claimed by plaintiff. He was therefore entitled to succeed on this claim, and also to succeed in the board's counter-claim of £6B for overpayment. Judgment was suspended to give Sir. Dickson opportunity to submit legal argument on the first item.