A LOWER HUTT ROAD

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 117, 15 February 1928, Page 16

A LOWER HUTT ROAD

4 CONTRACTORS’ UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM A judgment of interest to contractors and residents of Lower Hutt was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, in the chum made, against Dr. J. ]{. Boyd, of Wellington, by William Aplin and Samuel Hunter, contractors, of Lower Hutt, in respect to the formation of St. Ronan’s Road, Lower Hutt.

The Magistrate, in the course of a lengthy judgment, said that differences had arisen between the parties as to the class of metal proposed to be used, the amount, method of rolling to which the road was being subjected, and the state of the consolidation that was being achieved. Finally, the work had been taken out of the plaintiff’s hands, and given to another firm of contractors (o complete in the manner desired by the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that they had done all they were bound to do under the contract, and had accordingly sued the defendant for Jl2lO 9s.

Concerning the question as to whether a sum of d)B2 conjd be rightly claimed as an extra in respect of the top course of mefal. the Magistrate said that after the contract was signed, but before the work was carried out. the Lower Hutt Borough Council appointed a new engineer, who drew un a new sot of standard specifications. The plaintiff submitted some samples of crushed river shingle, but these were not approved, and they were compelled to use quarrv metal at an additional cost of ,£'B2. But for the changb of engineers, it seemed to the Court not unlikely that the plaintiff would, so far as the borough council was concerned, have got through with some class of crushed river shingle. “I am satisfied, however,” continued the Magistrate, “that the samples did not comply with the specifications. I think that they were rightly condemned.” Referring to the second item of claim, the Magistrate said that the plaintiffs had disregarded directions given them by the defendant’s engineers, in respect of the watering of the top course of the road, _ knowing that water was not ■Hied in the contract. They were, however, bound to finish (he work in a substantial workmanlike manner, and tlieir failure to carry out the directions caused the subsequent difficulty and expense. ... Holding that the defendant was within his rights in faking the work out of the plaintiffs’ hands. Mr. Page said that the expenses incurred by him might be set off against the plaintiffs’ claim. Judgment was given for the defendant accordingly, with costs amounting io £22 13s. At the hearing Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiffs, while the defendant was represented by Mr. J. S. Hanna.