DISTRICT COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 341, 24 October 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

The District Court sat in Christchurch on Monday last when, after the adjournment of two cases, the following - case was heard:— PAWSON AND OTHERS V THE OKAIN's ROAD ) ■'•;;.•; BOARD. In this case Thomas Pawson was plaintiff, and the Okain's Road Board defendants. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendants £136 6s Id under a contract entered into by the plaintiff with defendants for the performance of certain work. The defence was that the work had not been carried out according to the specifications. The woikhad been partially done, but that the gradients and stone abutments were not done.

Mr Izard appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for defendants. . .

The case for the plaintiff was that he had carried out the work according to the specification, and that the work was finished on the 10th June, 1879. On the 7th June plaintiff gave thechairman of the Board notice that he ehpuld be prepared to have 4* a Board ineeting held, subsequently he tendered his account,: and the chairman; said he was quite satisfied with the. work. Some of the members of the Board objected to the payment of his account, and he asked them to come and see the work. . - ; J

■ Evidence was led by Mr Lsard to prove the case for the plaintiff

Mr, Barker, the Chairman of the Okain's Bay Road Board, deposed that as chairman of the Board he had reported that Pawscn's contract was completed, and a progress payment was made to him on account of it. The as done hy. the plaintiff, was in accordance -with the specification. The' witness; had not measured the work, but had expressed himself satisfied that the wqrk had; beenjdone according to specificatiqnr ( ' '"V ' .', '■' ' ''" -'. 'James M'lntosh, one of the plaintiffs in the action, deposed to the work being done according to contract. ,

— M'Kay deposed that in his opinion the work had been done in a workmanlike manner. ' >

James Mlntosh r re-called, said the founfdatioflß pt jthe wall jwcre between three foiit seefe thic& r\ -'"-' • Tor the Mefence , , Mr Williams called Henry.'ißfehnetr* k ftieitiber of the Okain's 'ißoadl Board,, who said there was a difference beiween,the chairman and meTn" bera'.of the to hoW th 6 -work had been done. ' Ha,d had a laige experjenQe, was of opinion that the foundatidn i^as , riot sufficient, and the wall* would come down ; in fact,.it had conic down. After the completion of the wall it bulged out. Did riot cpnsiderthat the. wall had been built in a workmanlike manner, and he had pointedl it out at the time. The wort was npyer passed by anybody. The plaintiff ha,4 sent jri his t bill td the Board for the, whole of his money, but was infqrrped that |they could only, give him 75 per pent,, according to the provisions of the .Ordinance. No report had been sent in to the Board to acquaint, them whether the contract had been completed or not. A material- portion ioi tb6 work was not according t,o, specification.. , BQok§d, quite meajsureinents in the benching; half of that number were wrong, ; -

i David Wright, clerk, ,to! the Board, deposed that the work had not been passed as complete , acddrding to the specification up to Friday, 13th June, the night of the flood. The work required to be measured before it could be passed. Being all car-

ried away it was impossible to measure it. As he had never measured the work he could not say whether it was properlydone or not. It was to be done to the satisfacchairman of the Board and noenginqerVT«sidin|f. r hs,h)>id examined-tlie road.' a|t : over|?Jt The specifecatio'n was nipt clcajc-, a&;tp;th|ripenching.- .Took two or thre*e "levelß,«^i in. sonic placesthe t slopes' nof.acoording to specification. a r professional man would not have'reported the work to be complete, as the slopes were so deficient.,

Mr # Williams .submitted. tjhat_ his clients were Wtitfedj tcf dn !the thflt tlieSvidence of tflie chairinari of thd Board had been given in such a manner as ii'ofto" lead to the belief that the work .had .really;, been done to his satisfaction. It was impossible forihim to have' formed ,a right conclusion as to how the work was done, asi when he rode over the road it was not actually finished. If he thought the work had been done properly it was his duty to have passed it. ''> * The evidence iofthe witnesses for the defence left no doubt that the workiihad jy>.t, been completed ija iiaccbrdancfe with the specifications. Both Mr Bentiett and Mr Fenton were perfectly clear oaj that pcint. Mr Izard having replied, . , His Honor entered a nonsuit against

the plaintiffs with coats,