DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2052, 21 September 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. I Monday, Skptembbb 20, [Before His Honor Judge Ward.l The following case was heard after we went to press yesterday : JOHN DIXON V PBTBE MCGKATH. Mr Stringer appe'ared on behalf of the plaintiff; Mr Greeson 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 Akaraa section of railway, and ho 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 amount 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 and 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 extras. Mr Hall, clerk in the Public Works office, stated that Mr Sigloy. 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 extras. Judgment was given for £625 10s 4d. The Court then adjourned till eleven o’clock this morning.