DISTRICT COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 436, 24 September 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

' At a sitting'©!:' the District Court, held at Christchtirch, on Monday, before Judge Ward, tho following case was heard: — • ;/. JOHN DIXON.V TETER MCGRATH. Mr Stringer appeared On' behalf of the .plaintiff ; Mr.Gresson for the defendant. This was an action to recover £719~4s 4d. It appeared that McGrath was a contractor under Government for the Ellesmere, contract of the Christchurch and Akaroa section of railway, and he sublet a contract to the plaintiff, John ; Dixon. The claim set out was for extra work done in driving the piles of the bridge thirteen feet beyond what was stated in the original agreement, such extra work involving.not only increased labor but a large amount of additional, timber. The amoimt.of extra work was admitted. Mr Stringer opened his case by a brief statement of the facts which would be elicited in evidence, and remarked to the Court that the case would in all probability turn upon the construction to be put upon the agreement entered into between the parties. Several witnesses were called an J the plans produced, from which the plaintiff carried out his contract. For the defence, Mr Gresson called Peter McGrath, the defendant, who swore that he only promised to pay the plaintiff for extras in the event of his getting the money therefor from the Government. He'had not received anything on that account from the Government. Mr Simpson, Government Engineer, produced copy of deed" of contract between Mr McGrath and the Government. A clause in the contract was to the effect that if necessary ;the piles must be increased in length, and no additional remuneration would be allowed for such extra's. Mr Hall, clerk in the Public Works office, stated that Mr Sigley, who was Dixon's partner, had access to the specifications of the Government contract, and did see them on more than one occasion.

Counsel on both sides having addressed

the Court,

His Honor said it appeared to him the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the weight of evidence going to show that defendant had promised to pay for extrasJudgment was given for £625' 10s 4d.