Carlo Catani is sued in Warrnambool County Court

The Age newspaper of April 10, 1902  (see here) reported on a Court case where Carlo was sued in the Warrnambool County Court. The plaintiff, William John Murray, was unsuccessful. The case was in connection with the Merri River drainage scheme. The Merri River is to the west of the town of Warrnambool and I will write about the drainage scheme one day.  Over the years, Carlo gave evidence at committees and inquiries in a professional capacity and he was on the other side of the Bench after he was appointed a Magistrate at the St Kilda Court, where the first case he heard was on May 15, 1917, but this is the first court case I have found involving Carlo as either a plaintiff or defendant.

The Court House at Warrnambool, where the case involving Carlo was heard.

Warrnambool Court House, Timor Street. Photographer: John T. Collins, taken November 22, 1981.

State Library of Victoria Image H98.251/2516

Here is the report from The Age of April 10, 1902 -

A Peculiar Claim. A Public Works Officer Sued.

Warrnambool, Wednesday.

At the county court, before Judge Hamilton, William John Murray, owner of land near the Merri River, sought to recover from Mr. Catani, of the Public Works department, £19 19/ for certain work alleged to have been done on the authority of the defendant in connection with the Merri River drainage scheme.

Plaintiff stated that he had an interview with defendant at Warrnambool, and that the latter arranged with him to interview all the land owners interested in the Merri drainage scheme, with a view to inducing them to buy from the Government all the land between their holdings and the river which had been reclaimed. Defendant told plaintiff that he would be handsomely paid if he undertook the work, and after considerable demur he consented to undertake the task. He sent in two or three reports to the department, showing the results of the interviews, and defendant had on two or three occasions assured him that "he would be paid all right."

Some time afterwards, Mr. Catani and the Surveyor-General called on witness at his house, and in the course of conversation the Surveyor-General asked plaintiff what authority he had for doing the work for which he claimed payment. Plaintiff thereupon produced a letter he had received from Mr. Catani, and the Surveyor-General, after reading it, remarked, "Oh, he has been employed all right." 

At a subsequent stage, however, plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Catani, in which the latter stated that it was understood that plaintiff undertook the work "because he owns so interested in securing a river frontage for himself." At a later stage the Government repudiated the action of Mr. Catani in engaging his (plaintiff's) services.

In reply to Mr. S. F. Mann, of the Crown Law department, who appeared for defendant, plaintiff admitted having received certain amounts from land owners for his instrumentality in securing the drainage of their land.

Mr. Mann submitted that the action was an improper attempt to reach the Crown. The department should have been sued, and not one of the department's officers in a private capacity. His Honor coincided with Mr. Mann's view.

Mr. Chambers, who appeared for plaintiff, pointed out that the department had repudiated Mr. Catani's action. His Honor: Then there is all the stronger ground for an action against the department.

Plaintiff was non-suited, and costs were allowed to defendant.