RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COUET.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3516, 18 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COUET.

Tuesday, August 17.— Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M. Judgment Summons. — R. Specks. D Woodhead. — Defendant was examined, and stated that he was unable to pay the debt. He was willing to pay £1 per month. — Mr. Halse appeared for plaintiff, aud accepted those terms. — Defendant was orlered to pay £1 per month, or in default to be imprisoned for three weehs. Judgment fob Plaintiffs.— R. Bishop & Co. v. Jackson, £4 ; R. Cunningham v. D. O'Connor, £1 ; F. Bell v. D. Alexander, £1 17s. DEFENDED CASE. Irvine v. Harbour Board. — Mr. Halse appeared for the defendants, the plaintiff appearing in person. The plaintiff stated that at a regular meeting of the Harbour Board he was^ instructed to undertake experiments in connection with local cement, and the sum of £25 was voted to defray expenses. He was told at the meeting of the Board that he would not bo bound down to the £25, but he might exceed that amount if necessary. He found that the expenses were considerably over that amount. He accordingly presented a " progress payment " voucher for the sum of £28 ss. 4d., which amount he was paid. He had also incurred an additional expenditure of £14, which he afterwards claimed from the Board, but which the Board refused to recognise. Witness produced to the Board two blocks of cement which were made in the year 1879, and were given up to the Board at the request of the Chairman in July last. At a meeting of the Board on the 10th May, 1879, he informed the Board that the sum of £28 did not cover all expenses, and the Board requested witness to render a complete account of the expense incurred. On that day he was dismissed, without notice, and he could not get at his papers to render a full account, but afterwards he did so through his solicitor. He left New Plymouth and resided in Canterbury for some time, but returned to New Plymouth

in June last, and sent in another account for the expenses. He received a letter from the Board asking him to send in a detailed account, accompanied with vouchers, and also his report upon the experiments. He complied with the request, and sent in a full report to the Board. The Board declined to acknowledge his account. Shortly after receiving his authority to carry out the experiments, he considered that the importance of the matter fully warranted him in exceeding the sum of £25 in conducting the experiments. His experiments were conducted to a successful issue, ' and he was fully satisfied that the cements could be made. Although the Board had the information about the cements, they expended more money in order to corroborate his statements, and his report was afterwards fully borne out by other experiments. — Crossexamined : He asked the Board to authorise the experiments, as he did not consider the cost would exceed £25. He sent in a rough estimate of the cost of the experiments, which was £25, and he never amended the estimate. The Board authorised him to go on with the experiments, in accordance with the estimate, lie sent in his account, which exceeded the estimate by £3. When he filed his statement in bankruptcy he informed the trustee that he had this claim against the Board. The receipt on the voucher for the payment of £28 expressed that the payment was made "in full," but he did not notice the words "in f nil" when he signed the receipt. The reason that several items now claimed were not included in his first account to the Board was that he looked upon the first account as a " progress payment." The item " rent " meant that he charged the Board for storing the cement in his own house. He charged the rent, after his dismissal. He paid Mr. J. Hendry for his services previous to Hendry rendering his second account to the Board. Hendry had, apparently, been paid twice for the same thing. James MoLauchlan deposed that he was present at the meeting of the Harbour Board. He heard the plaintiff state that he had incurred expenses over and above the £28, and the Chairman asked plaintiff to send in a further account. For the defence, the Secretary of the Harbour Board was called, who produced tho minute-book of the Board and vouchers, showing that the Board intended that the payment of £28 to Mr. Irvine was a final payment. His Worship reserve 1 judgment until Thursday next. This concluded the business.