WARDEN'S COURT.

Lyell Times and Central Buller Gazette, Volume V, Issue 235, 15 August 1885, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Accolino v. Unite 1 Alpine Company.— Claim for £ 193 bs 8.1, made up as follows : —Breaking-down hanging-wall of reef; filling up foot-wall, and extra labour in following reef in uprise, inste-il of maintaining two plumj lines, —£3 1G ■; 81; extra work through using larger timber than specified, £10; extra labour in altering uprise for lli) feet, to Xo. 5, according to instructions fro n defendant's manager, £SO; extra labour through defendants supplying improper steel, 5 months at 15s per diem, £J7 10j ; extra labour imposed upon complainant, in carrying out his contract, by reason of alteration made in direction of rise by order of defendants,—£.]o.

Mr Haselden, and with him, Mr Jones, for plaintiff; Mr Lynch, for defendants. Mr Haselden opened the case for the plaintiff. His client, in August, 1834, entered, into a contract with the defendant company to construct a rise from a point at 58 feet above its No. (i level, and terminate the same at No. 5 level. The defendant company had refused a copy of the contract itself, after the work was done, or even to allow complainant inspection for the purpose of noting its provisions. (Contract produced also other correspondence between the parties, and which was road). He be able to show to the Court, that his client had performed a yery large quantity of work, which was extra to the contract, and had not leceived justice at the company's hands. It appeared to be an impression fast becoming deep-seated, that incorporated companies could do acts with impunity, which, in an individual, would would be looked upon as contemptible. Accolino, deposed; In August, 1884, I entered into a contract with the defendants, for a rise contract from No. 0 lex el, to No. 5. It was then already driven 58 feet. I was told to keep to two plumb lines; one in level set, and the other about 40 feet up, and to keep a straight line until within about GO feet of No. o level. Conradson, mining manager, gave me the instructions. He left four days after we started, and F. Sheran took his place. When my work had progressed 12 feet up, a reef was struck. Next day, timbered-up for 8 feet. Sherin told me not to timber un as then going, but break into reef and take out all mullock from the foot-wail. The reef was then going away from rise. Breaking down hanging-wall was no part of contract, the rise should have been at back of reef. For 119 feet of the job, I was compelled to use much heavier timber than that specified. The item of £SO, is for extra work doue through our cours * frequently being altered. I lost nearly £'2oo oxer the job, and had I not been interfered with, could have made it pay. The item of £O7 10s, is a charge at the late of I<>s a day, for loss of time and extra work, through having had to use large steel. I asked repeatedly for smaller drills, but was told to buy the steel myself. The first 15 feet we were told to drive straight. The ground got good. The manager then ordered us into the footwall where it was very hard. Drove 12 feet straight, and were then told to keep to the south: that took us away from reef; a straight line would have taken us to the north. To the south, the ground was much harder. Through so many deviations, more stuff had to be excavated. (Plan of mine by E. Watkins, C.E., produced). There is no plan showing how the rise has been constructed. Had the 1 rise been put up straight, n light at the

top, would be visible at the bottom. The angles in it made the haulage, of timber, &c., more difficult. The company gav§ me a bonus of £'so for finishing the work, by end of March, 1885. Originally, the intention was to keep to the hanging-wall side. That was fair ground, but in the foot-wall it was like steel.

[To be continued in our next.,