RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3518, 20 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

THURBDAY,"August 19.— Before T. A. Mausford, Esq., R.M. Irvine v. The New Plymouth Harbour Board.-t- His Worship delivered judgment iii this case as follows :—: — Divested of personal prejudices and associations which do not affect me in any manner this case is simple enough, and may be easily disposed of. The plaintiff being at the time the Engineer of the Harbour Board was instructed to test local hydraulic limes aud cements having previously, in a written memorandum addressed to the Chairman, given an estimate of the expenses necessary i to be incurred in making such tests. The sum estimated by the engineer for these expenses was £20 or £25. Considering the relationship existing at the time between the parties this memo, can I think be considered only as a rough calculation and not intended to bind the plaintiff to the sum named. The Board, by resolution, approved of the plaintiffs recommendation, but do not appear to have limited him to £25, or any other sum, which they probably would have done had it been so intended. About the end o£ December, and while the experiments were still progressing, the plaintiff submitted an account of expenses incurred by him in testing the limes and cements amounting to £28 ss. 4d., the plaintiff certifying that he had incurred liabilities to that amount, there being nothing on the face of the account to indicate that there were no further liabilities, or that the experiments had terminated. This sum of £2S ss. 4d. was paid on the 3rd January, 1879, and a receipt given, not as was sought to be made out in full of all claims in testing the cements, but in full payment of the above account, showing in detail how the expenditure of £28 ss. id. had been? arrived at. As a matter of fact, from the evidence adduced and vouchers produced, further liabilities were incurred by the plaintiff, which he now seeks to recover. Applications, were made for payment by the plaintiff's solicitor in November last, and in May of the present year by the plaintiff Mm3elf, and in reply to the latter the Board, by their Secretary, after asking the plaintiff to what extent, and with what result he had carried on the experiments, what had become of the blocks of cement, and why lie had not applied for the additional amount, before ; state that on receipt of the above- information and the production of vouchers for the various items, the Board would,' consider whether they would or would not pay the amount claimed. This letter fortifies the opinion that I have formed, that the plaintiff is entitled to be repaid any expenses reasonably incurred by him in testing the cements, notwithstanding they exceeded the original limit of £25. If the Board considered that they had already paid the plaintiff the full amount to which he was entitle 1 that should have been their reply to his application for payment ia May last, but their letter would lead most persons to infer that if the plaintiff produced vouchers showing an expenditure even exceeding the amount originally contemplated that it would be paid. I think the plaintiff has made out a fair case. The last item of £20 must, of course, be struck out, and also the item of £2 Bs. for rent after the 10th May, 1879, which will leave a balance of £17 14s. as due to the plaintiff, and propevly vouched for. I therefore give judgment for I the plaintiff for £17 14s. and costs.