RESIDENT' MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 700, 14 July 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT' MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, July 12. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASE.

Stephen Roff y. Ratepayers of the Paroa Road Board District. — This was a civil case of some local importance. In August, 1868, Mr Stephen Roff took a contract under the Grey Road Board, to protect a portion of the river bank. After he had taken down the old works, and driven ten piles in the new, hiscontract was cancelled by a committee, of the Road Board, and all materials and labor forfeited for an alleged breach o,f the contract. Claims for the value of the work done have frequently cjme before the Borough Council lately ; but thoy roooiavaondod tliafc tllfi- action should be. taken against the Paroa (late Grey) Road Board. The action was accordingly brought for L4O, for work and labor done. Mr Guinness appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for the defence. — The plaintiff stated the particulars of the claim, and his witnesses proved the amount of work done, which was sworn to as finished to the satisfaction of the Town Surveyor, each pile driven being passed by him before another was touched. They would not g ) the prescribed depth, but that was owing to the natural formation, and to no fault on the part of the plaintiff; He had never heard the surveyor complain of the manner in which the piles were shod, and remembered, in the absence of the surveyor, Mr Greenwood being called in to see that the piles were driven as far as they would go. — R. J. Johnston was called, and said he was engineer for the Grey Road Board in 1868, and also acted as surveyor to- the Borough Council afterwards. He Knew some works erected by the plaintiff on the river bank. The piles were driven not less than. 9 or more than 18 feet deep. In cross-examination he read a clause of the contract that in default of a number of things he would absolutely forfeit all the work done and the cost of the same. He swore that he gave a written notice to the plaintiff to quit the work under the 14th clause of the articles of contract, because he was not doing it according to contract. He had never passed one of these piles ; he was dissatisfied with the work from the beginning. The third, pile appeared to him to be driven the required depth, but the next morning a man picked up a piece of a pile on the South Beach, about five feet in length, which he (Roff) said he had cut off the pile because- it was too long. He (witness) was under the impression that the cause of the piles not going down was the want of proper shoeing, and a committee' of the Board agreed to put on two men to drive a trial pile to see if it would go down 22ft.. When they went Roff objected, and would not allow them to work. He gave notice, and the work was. stopped by plaintiff, but since he (witness) had driven all the piles 23ft. Since the Corporation came into operation new piles had been driven alongside the others driven by the plaintiff to strengthen the work. While Roff was on the work he objected to the manner in which the piles were shod. Whall, Wickes, and the witnesses were present. The piles Roff drove were still standing, and were part of the protective work. He recommended the Council in one of his reports to stop the contract. He believed the reason why the piles did not go the full depth was the shoes slipping by being imperfectly fixed. The monkey was used until it had iio effect upon the piles, but he could understand this owing to the bad shoeing. Roff always persisted that they could n.ot.be driven further, A verbal notice to stop was given after the third pile wasl.driven, and he continued to drive up to the eleventh pile, when a written notice was given, in consequence of a resolution of the committee. Bell and Scott were the men he. sent to drive' the trial pile. J. A. Whall, who was a member of the, sub-committee of the Board, gave evidence very similar to that of the Town Surveyor. Mr Perkins moved for a nonsuit on the terms of the 3ontract, and Mr Guinness replied, but liis Worship granted the nonsuit, with sosts. "■■■ - v