TIMBER CARTING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 40024, 16 November 1929, Page 3

TIMBER CARTING DISPUTE.

A QUESTION OF MEASUREMENT. At the local S.M. Court, on Thursday before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., P. H. and E. -C. Leyland proceeded against H. Hutchins for the recovery of £34 1/1, balance allegedlv due for carting timber. Mr. J. Grant appeared for plaintiffs. and Mr. M. B. Bergin for defendant.

In e\idenee Ernest C’harrles Leyland, a member of the Leyland and .Larsen firm of carriers, of Palmerston North, said that, he entered into a contract to cart timber for defendant for 1/6 per 100 feet on 7tlr March of this year.. The arrangement was made in defendant’s yard.' Work was started in April. There, was' no signed agreement. On ’ 30th April witness sent an account in to defendant and on. the 22nd of the' following -month defendant banked a certain sum to the credit of witness’s account but witness disputed the amount as being full payment. A second payment was made about the 20th of the, following month and a third payment made at a later date. Witness made note of the terms of tlu* contract on ( returning to his hotel afte.r discussing the matter with ' defendant. It was the usual thing lo charge on gross measure when carting. On that basis defendant Still owed 7 him. £34 1/1. Defen-

dm it; got copies of all consignment .notes when the,timber was railed. To Mr. Bergin witness said that the note of the contract was made , the day of the interview with defendant. Defendant . said he had been promised the contract for which tiie carting was required for some time. Witness had carted previously for Hutchins. It was not always ■ the case with Messrs Cook and Son to deduct five inches for bark. Witness denied that the carting contract included carting from Kruse’s plantation in which Hutchjns was working previously to' tree felling at Robinson’s, but he admitted (lie had charged 1/0 per 100 feet less five inches bark for this job. Hutchins had paid this account for which witness issued a receipt. Witness admitted that defendant told him to cease carting timber from Robinson’s if lie was going to charge .more than was agreed upon but as the agreement had been for 2/per 100 witness did not cease car-

ting. *• v To Mr. Grant: Witness examined the trees, .before entering into the contract to cart them. They were small trees and -the 5 inches for bank would mean a loss of between five to eight per cent. Witness was not concerned with defendant’s price, for the logs. He was merely engaged to cart them. The Railway Department charged for full measure. Kruse’s logs came under a separate arrangement altogether. Roland Leonard Leyland, son of previous witness, said he was present when his father and defendant discussed the matter of. carting Robinson’s logs'in his yard. His , father quoted 2/- per 100 feet but later came to-1/6 per 100 full log measure. After the discussion the contract was recorded in his notebook. Witness watched, the entry being made and testified to if being correct. Witness was working on the job all the time. To Mr. Bergin: There was no one else present when the agreement was arrived at. Later at the railway station Hutchins spoke to his father - saying- that another contractor had quoted 1/- per 100 and asked what lip was going-to do about, it. His father had replied, that a. contract Imdbeen entered into and there was * no argument. This was before the • work was commenced. Hutchins agreed to fall the Irees in such a wav as to cause no undue ineon-

venience in carting the logs out of the plantation. The arrangement ‘for the carting of Kruse’s, timber was made at 7 a.m. in their, hotel, no ipriee being mentioned. AK. Bergin said the case was one of direct xpnJlict of evidence. Hutchins was an experienced timber . worker. Ho had worked on one or two contracts for plaintiff towards (he end of 1928. In March last both were anxious to obtain the cutting rights over Robinson’s timber. Defendant was * successful and lie approached plaintiff to , do all his cutting at Kruse’s and Robinson’s for ’l/6 per 100 less five inches for bark. The arrangement was made at the railway station. Towards the end of March plaintiff , commenced carting from Kruse’s . and on completion was paid £l6 by . defendant. ..Later defendant re-' ceived a receipt for the amount which coincided with the rate he . quoted. Immediately after receiving the first account from plaintiff on the Robinson job he complained that the price was not correct and told plaintiff not to continue unless at the price decided on for Kruse’s job. Plaintiff’s reply was that there was no price entered into for Kruse’s timber. * Harry Huteliins, timber, worker, of Foxton, said that-when employed by Levi and he was engaged at 9d pea* 100 less five inches. When witness obtained the contract for Robinson’s timber he saw Leyland at the railway station and asked him for a price for carting. Witness had had a talk to Leyland in his own yard about a week prior to this when he had half promised Leyland a chance of carting if witness got the contract. No arrangement was entered into in the yard. At the station witness asked for a price for Kruse’s and Robinson's timber and was quoted 1/6 per 100 full measure. Witness replied that that was no good and the arrangement was made to do the work at 1/6 pea 1 100 less live inches. Wit-

ness did not accept the 1/- per 100 price as it was to have been done by lorry and this would necessitate u certain amount of snigging by witness. If Leyland did the work this would be obviated. Leyland junior took no part in the discussions. The contract for carting covered Kruse's and Robinson’s work. Witness paid out for carting on the statement received from Messrs'"lOook and Son and this was accepted as payment in full at 1/6 per 100 less five inches. Witness did not receive any account from Leyland for this work. Witness never called at the hotel at 7 o’clock ,-in the morning and entered into the contract with Leyland. If the price was as Leyland alleged it meant that witness would be working- practically for nothing. Witness had never worked for full log measure.

To Mr. Grant: Witness never gave plaintiff an account. Always paid -the money into plaintiff’s account, There >vas nothing definite about the discussion in witness’s yard as witness did not have the contract then. Witness never asked Leyland to call at his house. Leyland even said that morning that he had obtained the contract for felling the timber. .Witness went over and asked Mr. Easton and found that Leyland’s statement was not correct. Witness subsequently obtained the contract himself and then entered into the agreement with Leyland a.t the (Railway Station. •

Norman Nielsen, timber worker, said lie had worked for Leyland at Taikorea and Foxtail. He had been -paid 9d per 100 less five ifiehes. Witness had never heard of any cjyitracts being' entered into that did not embrace an allowance for bark. Witness was present when the argument took place between Hutchins and Leyland oi\ Robinson’s job. Hutchins told Leylano then that unless he could cart for 1/6 less.five inches lie could- pull the horses out and leave the job straight away. This lie didn’t do. Witness worked it out. with Hutchins at the time and he knew that it wouldn’t pay them to pay 1/6 per 100 full measurement for carting. All carters' carted less five inches.

The S.M. in -summing up said the evidence'pointed to the contract for the carting having been fixed at the railway station. At the time of the discussion in Hutchins’ yard he had not been successful in obtaining the contract. The fact that Hutchins agreed to feli the trees in a. certain way and do other things to lighten Leyland’s work showed that- lie was doing- what he could to assist him with carrying- out his work at a lower price.

Judgment was given for defendant with costs £3 3/-.