Wellington Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 13, 21 January 1885, Page 2

Wellington Supreme Court.

■■ ■ . m ARMSTRONG V. WELLINGTON AND MANAWATV RAILWAY COMPANY. The followiing report of tlie above case is taken from the Wellington morn-, ing paper :— .-\ ■ This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Edwin John Armstrong, to recover the sum of £800 deposited with his tender on account of suction No. 13* ou .the Wellington and Matiawalu Hallway, tor the construction of which suction of the line he had contracted, and which had been declared foifeited to the company. Mr izard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W T. L. Travers for the defendant company. The following evidence was taken :— Edwin John Armstrong, the plaintiff m the present action, deposed that he was a civil engineer and also a contractor for railway works. Oil account of seeing an advertisement by the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company m the papers for tenders for the constructions of section No. 13, he tendered for the job, having previously inspected the plans, &c. The amount or, his tender was £27,000, and, having -signed it, he took it down to Wellington, and placed it m the company's tender box ou the morning of January 15, 1885. On the following day he saw Mr Wallace, the company's secretary, and witness aud Mr Wallaca called at the office of Mr Nathan, who was chairman ot the bompuny, aud also the company's eugineer, Mr Higginson. A conversation ensued about the prices of tho work, which was apparently satisfactory to all parties. He received an intimation from Mr Wallace that the tender was the lowest; sent m. Ou the 18th January witness received a telegram from Mr Wallace, which was followed by the receipt on the following day of a letter from the same gentleman. Before putting m his tender he had applied to .Mr Soelsoij and. a Mr Dunn to become his sureties, and both of them had agreed to accept the responsibility, aud subsequent to his receiving the telegram and letter spoken of they were both ready and willing trf become sureties. The letter stated that witness would be required to prove the bona fides of Mr Suelson. Witness saw Snelson, and afterwards witness' brother John agreed to become security. Witness, upon this, wired to Mr Wallace that his brother was willing to become one of his boudsineu. To this he got a reply accepting John Armstrong as surety, and stating that papers and contract for signature would be forwarded by post on'the 23rd Jauuary. Witness attended at the company's office at Paltncrston North ou the 26th January, m order to sign the contract, which, however could not be done, as the schedule prices were not at hand, witness objecting to sign the contract when all the papers were not attached to the contract. Subsequent to this his mother withdrew his offer to become one of the sureties, and on the 31st January he received a tele- ; gram from Mr Wallace iuformiug him that if the contract was not signed by himself aud the accepted sureties by noon on the following day, his deposit would be forfeited. The time of notice being so short, witness found it impossible to comply with the terms of the notioe contained m the telegram, but he forwarded a letter to Mr Wallace, pointing out that it was no fault of his that the contract had not been signed, mid asking that the matter might bo favourably considered by the directors of tho company. He was always prepared to proceed with his work. " • : By Mr Travers : The money of ,his deposit was obtained as an overdraft, Mr Dunn being surety for the amount. Witness put m a second contract for the construction of No. 13 section, the amouut being £34,544. His brother John hinted to witness that his estimate for the accepted contract was too low. Clark Dunn t coutractor,reßiding at Palmerston North, deposed that he wag a-, ware that the plaintiff tendered for No. 13eontract. Witness agreed to become one of plaintiff's sureties, and was acquainted with the amount of the tender. He had not signed the contract. Witness offered io become surety for Mr Armstrong's second contract. To Mr Travers : Witness became joint security to the bank for an overdraft of £800 as deposit to the railway company on the plaintiffs first tender. He had advised Armstrong to increase his tender for the No. 13 job by £4' 00. At the present time he was a partner of Mr Wilkie, the successful tenderer for the contract, but did not consider tho job was a fat one. The plaintiff had never asked him to attend and sign the contract, although he was quite ready to have signed it at any time. , This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Travers submitted that there was no case to go to the jury His Honor considered the case was one hi which the defendant company was entitled to a. nonsuit. Plaintiff was nonsuited.