THE OMOTUMOTU ROAD CONTRACT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1571, 18 August 1873, Page 2

THE OMOTUMOTU ROAD CONTRACT.

On Saturday, Mr Dobson, C.E., sat as arbitrator between the General Govern^ ment ; and Mr Cornelius O'Driscoll, in a dispute as to the amount to be paid to ihe latter for work a'one. under his "contract to construct the Greymouth and Omotumotu road. Mr South appeared for the Government, and Mr Newton for the contractor ; Mr Geisow, District Engineer, was in attendance. The proceedings on Saturday were confined to the taking of evidence called by Mr O'Driscoll. The witnesses called were Mr James Wylde, who had acted as Clerk of the ; Works during the progress of the contract, Mr Cooper,' sarveyor, and three men who had been engaged in ; the work of forming the road. At the close of their *evi- | dence, there was an adjournment of the inquiry until Monday. " ; It would be inexpedient and improper to publish any of the evidence until the case is completed, but sufficient may be given of Mr Newton's statement to indicate the matter of arbitration. Mr Newton explained that the arbitration had been agreed upon,' according to the provisions of the Public Works Act, and in consequence of a dispute as to the. performance of the contract referred to. The contract was entered* into in AprD, 1872, and determined by the; Government in February, 1873. ' The question now between the contractor and the Government was simply this— the contractor contended that, when the contract was so determined, it was fully completed except in one respect. He contended that it wa.s complete in every respect except the metalling, which -\ was not of the specified size.- The complaint on the part of the Government referred to watertables, the quantity of metal used, and the quality of the stone-facing. Mr Newton -continued by relating the circumstances und^r^wnicnrtn"B~T7o^i--h^l-been_carrjed on, as regards supervison, and described the evidence which he proposed to call. Qne thing which he proposed to show was that/ instead of five inches of metal being put upon the road, as alleged, there were nine inches' as specified, and that for the completion of the actual contract the work subsequently undertaken by the Government was unne^essapy. There apV peared to have' been L 1033 paid by the Government since the work was. taken out of the contractor's hands, but for no part of that amount did -the contractor liold himself liable, except for the cost of maintaining the poad for a specified period, and the cleaning of the watertables, 1 he having been willing to reduce the metal to the proper size, but was stopped by the Government. The amount which the contractor had actually received was L2342,and, with deductions equal to the cost" of breaking the metal; and the other work referred to, he contended that he was entitled to receive the difference between L 3444 and that amount. ' : To-day Mr South will call evidence on behalf of the Government. -