THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8846, 25 November 1889, Page 2

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. Saturday, November 23, . (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond and a special jury.) MAHONEY V. THE QUEEN. This case, in which D. Mahoney claimed L 825 from the Government as commission for preparing plans of a proposed new prison and police station at Dunedin, was resumed.

Hia Honor having decided to allow the case to go to the jury, Mr Bell opened the case for the defence, and then called Mr T. Fergus, Minister of Justice, who stated that when he requested Mahoney to prepare the plans it was decided to make provision for any future beds that might be required, but it was only proposed then to erect the police barracks and police court. When witness first saw the plan of the prison he said the Government had not the money to go on with the erection of. it. Witness had asked Mahoney to go on with the plans of the police barracks as soon as possible. Had roughly compiled the cost of the building, but did not remember exactly what the amount was. Witness said the plans

had been very well prepared. When Mahoney was) at witness’ office on the 26th April he said he had had a great deal of trouble and work in preparing the plans, and he wished to know if he (witness) would allow him anything. Witness said, “You did a courthouse or gaol before,” and witness replied “Yes.” Witness asked Mahoney what ho was allowed for that, and he replitd “L 25; but this was a work of much greater magnitude. ” Witness admitted that, and he told Mahoney that he had intended offering a premium for competitive designs ; that he had spoken about it to Mr Wales, of Dunedin, and he (Mr Wales) had assured him that they could get any number of men to compete. He told Mahoney that he would allow him the same sum that it was intended to give to (

a private architect for the competitive designs. Witness believed that he mentioned the sum, but he was not sure. Mahoney expressed satisfaction, and left. Witness had no recollection of Mahoney asking to he treated as a private architect and paid by commission, and he would have objected to it if it had been said. In cross-exami-nation, the witness said .that when he first instructed Mr Mahoney to prepare the plans he had no intention of erecting the prison, and it was only for the purpose of getting the ground allocated that the plans of the prison were prepared. The reason why the plans were lithographed was to have them on record. He thought it was part of Mr Mahoney’s duties to prepare the plans, if his other duties did not interfere. He could not say what the practice of the department was. Did not expect to , pay Mr Mahoney, but to give him a gratuity. Had told Colonel Hume that he intended to treat Mahoney in a similar way to what he was treated for preparing the plans of the Wanganui prison. At the conclusion of Mr Fergus’ evidence, the further hearing of the case was adjourned until Monday morning.