A SURVEYOR’S CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2281, 28 August 1908, Page 2

A SURVEYOR’S CLAIM.

JUDGMENT FOB PLAINTIFF.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr W. A. Barton, b.AI., lengthy evidence was taken in the case in which Goo. -Grant-, surveyor (Air Stock) proceeded against ICarepa Mataira and AVaaka Toroawhiti (Mr Finn) to recover the sum -of £3B 12s Od for preliminary work in connection with the survey of certain blocks and for money lent. Plaintiff stated that in October, L 905, certain natives, including the defendants, approached him regarding the survey of certain blocks at Nuhalca, and an arrangement was entered into that the work was to be done at schedule rates. Ho lent the natives £lO to get home with at the time. The natives said that they were of sufficient importance to authorize the survey, and signed the requisition- He, however, found that this was wrong when he went to the Survey Office, and the Native Land Court, and that a number of other signatures were necessary on the agreement. These signatures were subsequently obtained by Air C. Ferris, junr. .No field work was done in connection with the survey, bait an amount of preliminary work was done at his office. Ho was occupied for six days and his assistants for fifteen days in preparing -plans, etc. In January 1907 he got notice cancelling his authority for the survey, and he subsequently learned that Colonel Winter had been .retained to do the work, and the plans wore sold to him. He considered that- £3 3s per day was a reasonable charge for the work clone. To Air Finn: He deemed that the signatures obtained were sufficient authority to commence the work. He had not received the authority of the Surveyor-General for the work: Chae. Ferris, junr., licensed interpreter, gave evidence as to having icted for both parties. He witnessed the signatures, and obtained the consent of the Alaori Council for the survey.

AVaaka Toroawhiti said that he, with other natives, went to plaintiff’s office regarding the survey of the blocks. Ho denied borrowing £lO, but did get £5 to obtain signatures. He did not sign -any authority for tlio survey and neven received any communication from Air Ferris regarding payment of plaintiff’s account for work done. Oil the occasion of the second visit to plaintiff’s office it was -arranged that the natives were to pay cash when the survey was completed. They did not have any idea as to the cost of the survey. Kirepa Mataira, the other defendant, gave similar evidence regarding the request to plaintiff to survey the block. He also corroborated the statement of the previous witness as to their receiving £5 each t 0 obtain the signatures of the other owners of the block to consent ta the survey. After lengthy cross-examina-tion ,and' when both counsel had addressed the Court, His AYorship reviewed the evidence and said that it seemed to him that it would be an absurd thing for any surveyor to enter into -a job costing close on £IOOO without some sort of security. Judgment would he for plaintiff for £32 12s with costs £6 12s.