SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4171, 10 July 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, July 10. (Before his JTnm.r Mr Justice Williams and Common Jury.)

Ritchie v. Proudfoot. —On the application of Mr Haggitt this case was placed at the bottom of the list.

David Kirby v. James Macandrkw, Superintendent for Otago.—This was an action to claim lASI 8s 3d for work performed. Mr Macassey, with him Mr A. Bathgate, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Haggitt for defendant. The declaration stated that defendant, as Superintendent of Otago, was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of L 461 8s 3d, for work and labor done and material provided at defendant’s request in respect to certain works known as contracts 948, 957, 958, 959, and 960, and for extra work and extra material supplied by plaintiff, at defendant’s request, in respect tp the said contracts ; that the contracts were entered and performed by the plaintiff; that the performance on the part of the plaintiff and defendant of the conditions mentioned in clauses 5 and 26 of the general conditions of the said several contracts were duly waived between the parties. The declaration concluded by stating that the work mentioned was duly performed, and that the time for payment had elapsed. The particulars of demand included a small number of works under the above contracts.

The ; lea set forth that defendant denied all the material allegations as stated in the first count of the declaration. That the work and labor alleged to have been done, and the materials alleged to have been provided by the plaintiff were respectively done and provided without the authority, sanction, or permission of the Provincial Council of Otago at any time obtained or expressed in any Act or Ordinance of the said Council, or by any vote or resolution thereof. That before the commencement of this action defendant paid to the plaintiff the sum of L 4,163 7s 3d, being all the monies due to the plaintiff on account of the several contracts due or payable up to the commencement of this action, and that the said sum was all the monies certified by the Engineer of Roads and Works to be due or owing or payable to the plaintiff under the said several contracts. That the Engineer of Roads and Works had not at any time certified for any farther sum of money to be due to plaintiff under the said several contracts. That so far as plaintiff's claim in respect of extra works, for which orders in writing from the Engineer of Roads and Works have not been given, the defendant also says that no orders were ever given for such extra works in accordance with the provisions of the said several contracts previous to the doing of such works at all.

Mr Macassey opened the case at length, stating that it would probably take till Thursday or Friday in bearing. [Left sitting.]