CHARGES WITHDRAWN

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3033, 21 March 1917, Page 9

CHARGES WITHDRAWN

ALLEGED BREACH OF CROWN CONTRACT PROSECUTOR'S EXPLANATION

■ In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr.L. G. Reid, S.M., Mr. V. R. •Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, asked leave to withdraw two adjourned charges against Robert Hannah and Co. of wilful broach of contract with the Crown. ' . Mr. Meredith made the following statement:—Two cliargos. havo been laid against tho defendant firm: (a). For not screwing boots strictly in accordance with . tho specifications j (b) for failure .to" mako deliveries in accordance with tho terms of the contract. Tho importance of tho strictest compliance with military contracts is such that the most jealous eyo is kept on contractors by tho Military authorities- and tho Advico Board of Supplies, and as this particular contract for the supply of boots by Hannah and. Co. was not being carried out with satisfactory regularity, proceedings wero instituted. The ossoncp of. the offenco charged' in' tho information, is that or wilfully breaking a contract with tho Crown, and to support such an information clear evidence would need to bo given tjjat the broaches of contract were deliberately committed' by.the contractors or by someone- on their behalf and for their benefit. Tho contractors havo put forward their explanation as to the causes of the alleged breaches, and it must bo said in fairness to them that they challenged proceedings to. bo taken to allow tho fullest investigation. However, further inquiries with a view to testing tho bona fides of their explanations have beon made by Government'officials, tho result of which investigations suggest that there is at least some degreo of excuso for the contractors; in .this case. In TegarcT to tho first information, namely, that some of the boots had not the requisite number of s'crows per boot Toquirod by tho specifications, .the' Department is satisfied that tho machine used in this operation is not absolutely automatic in its action,, but is moro or less subject to the control of tho operator, and it will:bo possible only with tho very closest supervision of the operators to enable rigid adherence to tho specifications. There is no motive that can.bo suggested for skimping in this respect, as it is ascertained that tho value of the material saved, if not infinitesimal, is negligible, Tlie .explanation < put forward in regard to delay of deliveries was: that during certain months' of tho continuance of tho contract there was a distinct shortago in heavy- sole leathor. Tlie military boot required. a particularly fine quality of sole leather, and the investigation of a Departmental officorjhas satisfactorily established the fact that thero was such a shortage. Hannah and Co., 'however, were tho principal offenders in getting into arrears with their deliveries. .This was tho cause of delay to a small extent in-one.or two other cases only. It may .bo that the exercise of closer supervision or greater foresight. in procuring stocks of leather might havo enabled Hannah and Co. to have "more strictly complied with the contract, but that is, of course, not the question in this case. TJnder those circumstancesit is considered that the evidence now in tho hands of the Department would' establish that thero was grave cause for dissatisfaction on the part of the Board'of Supplies, requiring it to call for the closest investigation, but I am unable to suggost that ii would support a charge* for wilful breach of con- ■ tract on-tho part of Hannah and Co. This being so, the proper course, now the investigations havo been-made, is to ask the leave of tho Court to withdraw, tho informations. I may add that the Military authorities havo fortunately not been hampered by tho delay of delivery in this case, owing to tho stock of boots being woll in. advance of requirements. . , . . . Mr. T. N.eave, representing Hannah and Co., said' that there had been no request or suggestion made by the firm that the informations should bo withdrawn by tho Crown. Tho, company would have preferred that the wholo facts of the case should be fully investigated and mado public. However, as' the Crown was satisfied that there was no justification for proceeding,,.all that counsel for the defendants could do was- to make a short statement. The main chargo was that of failure to deliver the. contract number of boots. Counsel desired to make it clear that the deficiency of supply.arose, entirely from the inability of the defendant firm to purchase, an adequate supply of leather to carry out tho contract. There was no lack of energy or assiduity on tho part of the company. With respect to the- suggestion that there was defective'screwing, it would, have been shown (had the matter been fully investigated) that the military boot supplied by the firm was at least equal'in quality to the sample supplied by the Defence Department for the information of the contractors.

His Worship observed that the "Court was concerned merely with. the"~Tyithdrawal of the charges. This was permitted. \' •