STRATFORD.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8663, 27 December 1889, Page 2

STRATFORD.

[fbom our own cobbespondent.J RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, December 23.— Before T. M. Smith, Esq., and Gr. A. Marchant, Esq., J.P. J. IRVINE V. TOWN BOARD. This was a case iv which Mr John Irvine, carpenter and builder, of Stratford, sued the Stratford Town Board for £20 14s, the amount of an account for supplying a cupboard, and trestle tables, and tor lining the side rooms of the hall. By consent, the amount was reduced to £20 to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr F. W. Richmond, counsel for tho plaintiff:, detailed the circumstances of his j client's claim as follows: — Ou August 21st the Board passed a resolution to the effect that tenders should be called for lining the side rooms of the hall, making a cupboard for the Board's books, and trestle tables, and that a special meeting of the Board Bhonld be held on Monday, the 26th, to receive tenders. On tho 26th the meeting was not held for want of a quorum, and an adjournment was made until the 27th, when four members were present, and his client's tender was accepted. At the next ordinary meeting, on September 11th, Mr Tocker pointed out that the meeting at which the tender was accepted was an informal one, as he had not received notice. A resolution was therefore passed validating the action of the Chairman and other members in accepting the tender* His client's deposit was received, and was still retained; no written agreement was, however, made. Whilst the work was in progrehs the members who formed the majority oh the Board lesigned, and others were elected who had different views on the desirability of the work, and who, presumably, wished to avoid payment. Ho called John Irvine, who said that he put in a tender for the work iv question on August 26th. The amount was £'20 7». Received no written notice of his tender being accoptod, but made an agreement with members of the Board verbally. Paid a deposit of 21s to the Clerk. Did the work. Sent in an account through the Clerk on December 11th. Had received no notice that the Board refused to accept his work. The tables and cupboard, when finished, were left in the hall. Cross-examined by counuul for defendant! (Mr X, Hutchison), p)ain.tis laiti

that he agreed at the meeting on August 27th to deduct £2 10s from his tender, on condition that no architraves were supplied, and that green timber should be ordered for the lining instead of seasoned. The lining was not to be clone until the timber had had time to season, but the Board agreed to pay for all material at once. Did not ask the Board's foreman of works to inspect. Ho sent in his account, and expected tho foreman would inspect the work.

To Mr Bichmond : His original tender was £20 7s; from this £2 10s was deducted, a 8 he had explained; but the Board had not paid him for the timber at once, as agreed, consequently it had seasoned at his expense, and he considered he liad a right to be paid for seasoned ; he therefore charged 30s, as the difference. There was 6s for extra rafters, and his deposit 21s, making a total of £20 14s.

Sidney H. James, clerk to the Board, produced the minute book, and read the resolution of August 21st, authorising the expenditure. Notices were posted at the stores calling for tenders. Received tender from Irvine and submitted it to the meeting on the 27th. No written notice was given of this meeting. Messrs G. Curtis, C. Curtis, Perm, and Mulree wore present. Only Irvine's tender was received. A resolution was passed accepting it. At the ordinary meeting of Septembor 11th all the members were present, except Mr G. Curtis. A resolution was moved by Mr Tocker and carried, declining to accede to an application for road improvement on the ground that all available funds were required for expenditure on the hall. After this, a resolution was carried validating the action of the chairman and other members in accepting Irvine's tender. Had made use of cupboard for Board purposes; ! didn't^ know anything about the tables. Irvine's account was received on December 11th. The Board disclaimed any liability. Cross-examined : The minutes of the meeting on September 11th had been confirmed, with the exception of those dealing with the hall. Gave all the members verbal notice of the meeting on August 27th, except Tocker, who was not at home. The foreman of works posted the notices calling for tenders.

To the Bench : The hall was no drag on tho resources of the board; on the contrary, it brought in a good revenue. He considered the work was done for bona fide public benefit.

Robert Kirkpatrick. foreman of the works to the Board, said that he had never examined the lining or cupboard, and had not seen the tables. He wrote out the specifications. Had received no instructions to examine the work.

Cross-examined : Had not been asked by Irvine to pass the work. Did not post a notice calling for tenders in Mulree's store, only in Curtis'.

W Doughty, custodian of the hall, said that the tables were let for a social gathering on September 6, and again on a later date. Received 5s for the use of them on each occasion. Had rendered an account to the Board of these moneys, and the Board had not refused to accept. This closed the case for th« plaintiff. Mr T. Hutchison, for the defence, urged that the plaintiff was not suing upon a contract at all, but upon several items ■which he stated had been agreed upen between himself and certain members of tlie Board. The specifications said that the work was to be passed by the foreman upon plaintiffs own showing this had not been done. In letting contracts local bodies were bound to adhere to certain provisions laid down by law. No contract amounting to over £20 could be let except by public tender. The posting of a single written notice in. a stove window was not sufficient to comply with the Act. If the amount exceeded £10 there must be an agreement in writing signed by two members. This had not been clone, and tho contract must be held void, in spite of the validating resolution passed on September 11th* He quoted the case of Climie v. Wellington Corporation, to show that the plaintiff was bound to prove that there was a contract binding- in law. With regard to the inference which, he presumed, the plaintiff wished to be drawn from a portion of the evidence, that use and benefit constituted a liability, he quoted a number of cases in the English courts in which such liability had not been allowed. He claimed a verdict on these grounds : (1) That there had been no .Bigned agreement between Irvine and the Board ; (2) that tenders for the work had not been publicly called with the meaning of the Act ; (3) that the work had not been passed by the foreman, as provided in the specifications. Mr Bichmond, in reply, said that the accepted tender being under £20, viz., £17 17s, neither public tenders nor written agreements were legally necessary. He cited cases to show that use and benefit constituted an acceptance of delivery, and, therefore, a liability.

Verdict for plaintiff for amount of contract £17 17s, extra rafters 6s, deposit 21s, costs £2 12s ; total, £21 16s. Mr Hutchison aaked the Bench to fix the amount of deposit in case of an appeal. The Bench declined, on the ground that it •would serve no useful purpose to put the plaintiff and tlie ratepayers to expense in fighting out an abstruse question of law. They had given their decision on equitable grourds, and would do nothing to facilitate further litigation.