DISTRICT COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 21, 21 November 1861, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, Novembeii 20, 1861. The court sat this morning for the despatch of civil business, C'apt. Curling taking Ins seat as District Court Judge for the first time. After a number of undefended cases had been decided, Dolhel and another v. IVoryaii and another was heard. .Ur. Wilson appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Alien for the defendant C-. Morgan; (he defendant (1. T. U. M organ neither appearing nor defending. The act ion was brought to recover £37 for iron work done by the pbrntifis for the defendants; and the elder plain! iff denied bis liability. Mr. ;l. Dolhel. one of (he plaintiffs, being called, proved that he had received the order for the work from the defendant GK T. B. Worgan, and that they had executed it and had applied for payment, and that (he last-named defendant had referred them to Capt. Charlton, who had declined to pay. —On being cross-examined by Mr. Allen, he admitted that he hail received no order from the other defendant, and had never applied to him lor payment. d lie plaintiffs were non-suited. J/r Itnht rls and others v. Carter , Superintendent. 'this was an action brought by the plain! I Ms, working men. against the defendant as [superintendent ol (he Province, to recover damages for the uon-iu!fi!mcut of a certain contract filtered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant, under which the former undertook to remove ami discharge (ho punts filled by the dredge at work in the harbor. The third clause of the specification si inula ted that the C overnmenl should supply a daily average of ton punts, to be filled and returned by the contractors within 1(5 hours, under a penally of os. for each punt per day. The defendant pleaded a denial of the contract, and that the plaintiffs bad accepted a certain sun; in full satisfaction of their claim. Throe of the plaint ills, namely, Me.Huberts, Morrison, and Kraft, were called, who proved the contract, and the porlbrmaniv of it hv themselves and asserted that their tender for the execution of the work was based upon the third clause, and that, unless (hey had been entitled to a dally average of ton punts they would, not have contracted. They employed live or six other hands, and were always ready to discharge ten punts, hut through the breaking down of the dredge, and llieemplovinent of the punt s for other purposes by the Government oa the tei-u;ic.a;ion of their contract on tire 11th .September, there was a d, iieie -cy of 213 punts in the number duo to them. They frequently complained of the average not being kept up. and Air. Wright promised to see to it. He, houvver, did not make up the deficiency. Before receiving the last payment, they expressly stipulated that it should be taken without prejudice to their claim against the defendant for damages for • lie deficiency. Mv. Wright prepared a receint showing the number of punts actually discharged, and they had signed it as a receipt in full for (he amount of that account. They had lost by the contract, and hail not received day wages as laborers. They bad tendered again at a higher price, hut (heir tender was not accepted. The tender accepted was much higher than their original one. For the defence, Mr. Wilson relied, first, upon (lie clause of the contract sued on, which, he contended did not create any liability to supply ten punts daily, the word ten being used only as an approximate term ; and secondly, he asserted that the receipt taken was a discharge in full, and the plaint ills’ claim an afterthought. lie called George Fdward Wright, the Director of Public W orks, who stated that there was no contract to supply ten punts daily ; that some of the punts were occattonally used for other Government works ; and that when they were not all supplied it was in consequence of the gear of the dredge being out of order, an occurrence winch ho described as inevitable- lie did not recollect that the plaintiffs, before signing the last receipt, made the stipulation asserted, but he thought they did so after the cheque was paid (hem. lie was cross-examined very closely by Mr. Allen, and stated that lie prepared the specification, but did not think it necessary to insert a danse protecting the Government for non-delivery of ten punts daily ; and he admitted that he had enforced the penalty against the plaintiffs -when they wore behind time. Mr. Allen, in reply, reviewed the whole case, commented upon the inevitable chronic disorders of the dredko, and urged that, in the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary, the contract was clearly proved, the defence, on the construction of the contract and the receipt, having wholly failed. The J edge announced Ills intention of deferring his judgment.