THE KENNARD CASE.

Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 2, Issue 65, 30 March 1868, Page 78

THE KENNARD CASE.

(From the Wellington Independent, 14tli March.) As most of our readers will not have either time or patience to peruse the lengthened reports of the evidence taken in the case of Kennard v Featherston, we. propose to give a short history of the affair. In 1862 the first portion of the wharf wasjbuilt in timber, from designs by Mr J. T. Stewart j and in 1864, the Panama route being mooted, it was proposed to extend the wharf outwards so as to give a depth at low water of 25 feet. The Government, unfortunately, as it has turned out, decided on having the extension constructed in iron, and sent home to London for that purpose a sketch of the dimensions of the proposed addition, showing the depth of water and general requirements; stating also in order to give a general idea of the site, that the timber piles of the wharf then existing had been driven 13 feet deep into a bottom, the nature of which was “stiff blue clay.” The sketch referred to also showed pointed screw piles; and stated, to begin with, ** that this sketch is merely intended to he suggestive as to the requirements of the wharf, and the design details, and strength of piles and framing : are wholly left to the engineer in Great Britain.” It was further stipulated that : the extension must be equal to the strain produoed by ocean steamers lying alongside. There was no suggestion made as to cylinders at this jime. From these particulars, the Messrs Kennard offered to design and erect the extension of-the wharf at Wellington, and supply a steam crane, four moorings, railway with turntables on the deok, for the sum of 31,813; stipulating that all the timber was to be provided by the Provincial Government, which timber, however, contractors were to fix and put together upon the wharf. On beginning to .screw in the piles, the contractors had several breakages of the screwing gear; hut, as was clearly brought out in evidence, and iUustrated by a model produoed by the defendant in Court, these breakages were caused by the system of screwing; the turning-power being applied by a key introduced into the inside of the top of the hollow oast iron pile, and evidently tending to burst it open; and all the piles thus broken were found to have given way exaotly where the strain was .appHed by the key. The key itself was turned by a capstan fitted on its upper end, worked by manual power, applied to the ; capstan bars—grooves in . the key allowing it to slip down through the capstan head; as the pile screwed .into- the ground, as it was turned. After repeated breakages the power was applied to to the outside of the piles by flanges connecting key to the pile head, and by this plan the Eiles went in with' no. great ■> difficulty; in .ict, only one pile: was broken afterwards, was less than the average breakage

in similar structures. Now, the point in dispute was, that the contractors attributed these breakages to the nature of the soil not being what it was represented; while the Government engineers said it was ow<* ing to the faulty screwing apparatus at first used, and to a defect in the construction of the screw flange of the pile, which, when altered by a slight operation of cut-? ting off a portion which overlapped in the screw flange, made a vast difference in the case of inserting the screw piles. The contractors in this action sued for damages—on account of alleged misrepresentation as to the nature of the bottom—to the extent of £7757- In this sum was included the extra cost they alleged they were put to in sinking the 25 cylinders in the outer face of the crosshead, as well as that caused by the extra difficulty of screwing in the 96 piles in the structure. The contractors gave terrible accounts of the gravel and stones they had metwith’, and one of the professional witnesses described his calculations as based upon a bottom of “ broken stones and gravel,” which description the contractors had given him, and the accuracy of which he did not apparently take any means of judging for himself. But the Government produced in Court specimens of the bottom, taken during the sittings of Court, by borings on the site, whioh effectually dissipated these vague and mysterious descriptions of the stratum on which the wharf was erected, and showed the bottom to consist of three feet loose surface deposit of sand; small gravel and shells; then seven to eight feet of sandy clay plastic when wet, and with here and there a stone or two varying in in frequency in different parts, but none larger than an egg ; and underlying this, down as far as the borings went, viz., 15 feet, was stiff blue clay and yellow clay. His Honor the Judge had intimated as (he evidence went on, that all that the data sent home by the Provincial Government in 1864, implied, was a bottom into which screw piles with a close point could be, with ordinary means, put in; and there was no denying that here was a bottom agreeing with this deserption. Thus vanished the large claim for contractors’® extras on account of nature of bottom. In fact, it soon became evidtnt there was ho foundation for this claim of the sre Messrs Kennard. Then another sum sued for in this action was the balance of the contract price withheld by the Provincial Government on account of the contract not being completed. This amounted to some £BOOO, and failing success in this claim, they songht to recover the actual value of the work as it stood. The evidence, however, J brought forward by the defendant as to the value of the work as it stood, was of a. very damaging nature. It told of what the contractor’s agent called “ cheap turntable,” which in fact were useless; and screw moorings with less ohain than the depth of water over them; of a 5 ton steam crane that. threatened to capsize when loaded with 2f tons ; and cylinders with fin plates instead of In plates, fiUed with an incoherent mass of sdnd and gravel and bad cement, instead of solid concrete.. Then there were fin bolts where lin bolts should have been"; and altogether, it appeared as if the Government would maka a bad bargain even if they paid no morethan the sum of £24,500, which the contractors bad already received to account. However, when the evidence on both sides was completed, and counsel were proceeding to address the jury, a proposal was made by the plaintiff, and a compromise ultimately arranged that the contractorsshould receive toe balance of contract money, less £2OOO, and give up all claims for extras on account of too foundation. This is satisfactory, as it closes litigation, and although the Government will probably be put to some expense before the iron extension is fit for large steamers to use, yet we hope it will soon be open for traffic. The evidence of nautical men showed that, toe wooden, wharf is much sounder, stronger, and better fitted to resist strains from vessels lying alongside in rough weather, than the iron extension as it now stands: oonsequenily some strengthening of the latter wiU probably be found necessary even after the damage caused to it by the collision of the Otago steamer is repaired.