SURREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3484, 23 April 1874, Page 2

SURREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. "Wednesday, April 22. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Common Jury.) HEALEY V. HEKNAN. The jury found for the plaintiff on all the issues, awarding L2O damages on the first, and LI on the second count. Thursday, April 23. GRAHAM AND ANOTHER V. SYKES AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought to recover the net sum of L 165 5s 6d, for breach of contract; and amount due for work and labor done. There were several counts, and the defendants’ plea to the first (which claimed L3IO for breach of agreement) was a denial of all the material allegations contained therein, except the making of the'agreement. The next three counts were for sums, amounting in the aggregate to L 22 16s, to which defendants pleaded a set-off for rent, &c., and which set off plaintiffs allowed. The remaining counts claimed L 220, and defendants paid into Court the sum of L4l 18s 6d, in satisfaction of it, saying that was sufficient to cover the whole. The replication of the plaintiffs was that the amount paid into Court and the set-off (L§4 14s od) was not sufficient to satisfy their claim; and the rejoinder of defendants to this was that they joined issue thereon. Mr Btout appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Smith for defendants. After giving a brief outline of the case Mr Stout called

Alex. Graham, ship carpenter, who said he was a member of the firm of Graham and Co., who entered into a contract with defendants to do certain work on the jetty at the Bluff and also repairs to the old wharf, defendants supplying the material. After commencing the contract, which was for L 720, some stoppages were caused by plaintiffs failing to keep up a supply of piles. A fresh agreement was then entered upon, increasing the amount to L 920, and the work was continued for a time ; but the delays again occurred, making plaintiffs lose a great deal of time. Some of the timber supplied was not passed by Mr Thomson, the inspector of works there. On September 23 witness complained to defendants about there being only condemned timber on tho ground, and said that if they liked to pay him for the work already done he would give up the contract. This defendants refused, but no timber was sent down for another week, and by that time the carpenti rs and other workmen in plaintiffs’ employment had left, as they could not waste their time. Then Mr Moffett, one of the defendants, asked witness to re-commence the work, else the Government would take it out of their (defendants’) hands. Witness asked for timber, saying it wornd not pay him to get wot kmen from Dunedin and keep them fooling about lor want of material ; and also proposed that defendants should appoint an arbitrator, whose valuation he would accept Moffett, however, went to Invercargill and brought three workmen with him, who commenced to work at a pile which the inspector bad previously condemned. Plaintiffs then lefc the work, defendants having taken possession of it. The work done amounted to LB2U and plaintiffs had received LtJOO on account of it. Ibis left L 220 due, or, deducting the L 54 14s tid set-off, L 165 5a 6d, the amount now claimed. Wi ness considered LIOO weuld not pay his firm for the elay occasioned, and the loss of lime. Cross-examined: Moffett never told witness that he was to put in any timber supplied to him as he (Moffett) was responsible to the Government,, but said that “he should try and shove in some of the condemned timber where it would not be noticed.” Witness declined to do this unless Moffett gave him a written order to do so, and tho letter thereupon said j he should put it in, in defiance of the inspeb- j

tor. The loss sustained by plaintiffs was in being detained so long over the job that they missed- other contracts. Witness’s brothers got a contract from August to October on the Port Chalmers jetty, but witness was not anxious to get away from the Bluff job to assist them,—William Graham, brother of last witness, gave evidence as to the frequent stopping of the supplies of timber. Cross-examine! ; Witness never told defendants that plaintiffs would only make 9d per foot all round on the job.— David Thomson, Government inspector of works at the Bluff at the time this job was going on, said he had to condemn a lot of the timber supplied by defendants, it being unsuitable. There were numerous stoppages from want of timber. Defendants took possseasion of the work on October 7, and the Government took it out of their hands on October 14, as the contract time had been much exceeded. The rate of wages had much increased at the time the Government took over the work; carpenters were paid 15a per day and their passages paid to and from Dunedin. [Left sitting.]