R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 42, 17 July 1885, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

YJESTBRDAY.

(Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.J Williams and Eolev v. Manawattt Boad Board.— Claim £47 17s 6d. Mr J. H. Hankins for plaintiffs, and MrG.F. Hawkins with Mr Waburton, for defendants. - = . --^i:Mr Hankins opening for plaintiffs. Contract No. 1 ;> admitted arid accepted, £43 17s 6a; additional e^,wwlci Tobs completed up to the' lst March; would bring evidence to show that penalties should not have been inflicted. 13th March, plaintiffs came to the conclusion they had performed their contract and went to engineer to get him to m. spect ; Armstrong promised, to be there on the 14th ; on the 17th ulto., contractors went again to his hoßae-and iaw^hig -wife ; who said Armstrong was away and would not be there till 19th.- About 26th March left pencil note with somebody (a German) asking him to do little extra work to the approaches to bridge^ ; tbay did extra work; saw nothing of Armstrong till. 3lst; what he said was wanted, was to fill up holes on road ; (it Yr&s hii duty: to have passed work before pJßefore this they allowed a carter to cart gravel on the road ; on the 11th March received notice from the surveyor calling attention to clause 6; the 'Manawatu Boad Board had no right to inflict'penally. - f-Vfr -^ : r.\.-.-'-A^-\^ißkx'f**. Owen Me Williams,' on his oath- said I and Mr Foley, entered into a contract with Board, for 55" ohains road formation at 13s 6d per; chain;; clid extra work amounting to £4; have "received from Board £33 17s 6d; we performed the whole of the work set out m contract No. 1 ; contract was to be cpmnleted on the 28th February; time wa'g ? e^ended by Mr Armstrong to. the 16th 'W^eph ; finished contract oh the 16th mar^]||Syas on the sight of the- work on %p'i|pi March, waiting for engineer to cdme^did not see engineer until the 31st ; I received a few lines from;- t\ej:engineer about 26th!March; I have'|ost this writing ;it was. writing: on piece of paper ; which appeared to havci 'been out of a note book ; I got it f rdni lyEiosg another contractor as near, as I can remember it required me to; do a little more extra work to approaches; I- performed that work.; saw engineer :ou the 3lst March for ; the first t.inie;r'#a : * : workingo!tt. another J had: front the.vßdatd ; the ,cn r gineer served me with nq notice; He ;tqld me to. fill some holes oh the side of the Joad, arid on the centre f ; ; I; performed' that work on. the^4th ; April; I sent m my. claim for Vamount of contract monies ; I wanted payment m full afterwards ,. I received no notice other than a notice that a penalty would be inflicted, when I sent m my claim on 31st March contract had been completed ; it was m consequence of receiving notice thatrpenalty would be enforced thit led me to go to the Engineer : on 13th j'l know Nathan, a contractor ; he , was carting gravel over this road 8 or 4 days, previousLy to 31st March, as far as I can remember. . ' . By Mr Hankins : On 14th March, completed the contract; I never went to the engineer ; on 6th May, I signed , receipt produced for £13 17s 6d ; wbfen 't went for money, I saw Mr Hog, I asked how it was we didn't get payment m full; he said that there was a'penaltr in- ; flicted ; I knew that there was £1$ 17g 6d due before sieving receipt, I signed receipt on condition that it would 'be.. settled ; I did not understand that receipt was m full of all demands; Mr Hoe told me to call upon the- engineer m reference to stopping money ; I dont know hpF Jt was I signed recept tor money m" fjjjfe.l expected to be paid m firti j.l read :^pecificati6ns for road formation;'! ha)|nqteonYeraation with Mr Armr tO^OlfigOßrtaTn"^©^ m acc6rdan.c^.with specification, he = gave ! me'inp noiice > j^there wag a man! ;Glad-?-storie, acting "as overseer on the work ; He only spoke to uj once during- the con* tract";.be called our attention to putting ? grass on rbadV we sublet the contract to 'Smith and other ; they did nor finish the contract ; I called upon the .sub-coritrad- • tor to fill holes up on their' own iVbrTtfJlf had eoriversatiori with Armstrong abciut*' the llth ; he did not complain ; he did not tell me that m consequence of delay it would stop metalling ; -It was at this tuije that I received notice that if work was not completed penalty would be m» flicted ; was on the works on the 14th, can't be certain whether I wag there all day ; Leave off work about 5 o^cldelcug- i ually ; can't be certain whether I was oil works on the 21st; Enox.had nothing to do with the contract at that time"; EriVf gineer s,aid nothing to me about taking work out of ray hands, m consequence of my delay. . - : •.' .. Michael Foley on oath said, remember ' entering into contract. Finished it oafthe 14th March, entirely m accordance specifications^ received notice that^unlesiT contract was finished a penalty would be inflicted. I went to Engineer on , 13th, I asked him to come and pass work ; told him it would be completed on . 14th March, .saw . nothing ,>df Armstrong during .that tiiiae.; On 17th- 'March J' .wentto see Armstrong' againV Saw Mrs. Armstrong, she told me Engineer would not be horne i until following; Thursday night the 19th. Saw notice ■>« extra work received from Armstrong. It wag written m pencil signed by Armstrong. .- The contents required me to fill up Tholes i, near the two bridges, nothing else. .^ We complied with, notice. On 31st March Armstrong told Us to fill m some holes. Armstrong showed us where to. fill m holes. If Armstrong had told me to fill m holes on the 14th we could have . , finished, them on the 16th. Armstrong ' never complained about our work. --'-•■ ; -' [The Court here adjourned until two olclock.]' . Cross examined- by Mr Hawking :''. Michael Fdley, I read writing from Armstrong. It was a letter about the size of j a leaf put of a pocket book with two or three lines on it. The first word waa be would like to have some holes filled 'up. . We threw the piece of paper away. iThere were only. 20 or 30, words m it,- 1.-. ; read th'e writing, don't krioiv where i| fa now. Did not destrpy it. Know-nothing, of the contract being l^kefl out of ; oflp -hands, I Hansen, We had no ooq? versation with him about contract. I saw the Engineer on the 13 fch March, no one else present, saw his wife on the • 17th Marqh. Saw him again on the 31st March. I know Gladstone. -• .He came to overlook the work. We took Gladstone's orders once, that was about tussocks being thrown on the road. He never opened his lips about any contract. Never told him I did not acknowledge ■! him. Gladstone lived about fifteen -. ohftina from works. Never wljed him »bout Armstrong, I knew he was the. overseer: but did not ask him for Armstrong. This closed the case for the plaintiff. .Mr ; .G-. F. Hawkins addressed the Court ior the defence, and applied for a " non-suit upon the the ground that plaintiffs are ostopped upon the face of receipt . of haying received ampuntiii full fatis- , faction of all • demands' ifrpm .re-bpen"iig f ..." up the coritriict. He "wdtild^ draw at- " tentiQn of the Bench to' clause 7in c6hditions of contract authorising^perialtieg to be inflicted. After work completed, : « and after notice given, that penalties wpuld be inflicted, plaintiffs received mpney and signed receipt m settlement of all demands. ■■ I ■ : ; His Worship decided that the case' v should proceed and would look upon^thV S payment as having been received under prot)st. ...-; ...... .- k ;. i ..- Mr Hawkins called for defence. • Edward John Armstrong, who on otith said; I am a Civil Engineer to the Manawatu Eoad Board, prepared 'gpeeP; - ucatlon3 to contract No. l. I know the

plaintiffs, I superintended their work. I have read letter produced. The a'legations stated m letter are only partially correct. The first portion containod m .letter asking me to inspect I complied ; with. I went down between four and five of the evening of the 14th March and inspected the work, found a considerable portion of the work unfinished. There was a man to superintend the work dur? . .ing my. absence (Mr Gladstone). When ..on. the workis .on the 11th I served a ' notice as to infliction of penalties. Called tiieir attention >|p^how progress of work :£everiil times. ;;;s7ent on 10th to inspect 'work, found their contract so incomplete that. l had to bring the attention of the Board to same. On the 14th gave my .instructions to overseer. A small por 'tion of _the formation required to be done apd the tabliing down. On the 23rd I wrote a pencil note to the contractors, .especially to-pall their attention jtb tabling otherwise I would not pass, the work. Found on the 31at March: the work was .'still' undone." Went to the contractors 1 and told them as they had tailed to carry put niy instructions I would bring the" inatfer; before Board. I attended on the ,lQfch, 12th, 14th, 21st, 24th, 31st. March.; Did not at all times see these men. Al-: ways went down on Saturdays abaut 5 ■[O'clock, am quite positive contract was not completed until after 31st March. On the 13th the contractors called upon mo to go down and inspect the work. .Went down but did not see them. -„/ By Mr J. H. Hankins: The length of 'jpontract was 65. chains, the work that •:sas undone was about 20 chains. On i. the 14th work was still undone. I con-: '•tsidered a verbal notice sufficient. On • i the 14th I was on work about 4 o'clock.l 4 '"$ nofc ne >ar fc kat contractors had been at - J n\y; house^ on. 17th Marclu Between the 14th and 21st I did not go near contract.. I found tlie work completed about the - ■*£ P^tb A.P™ 1 -- ! constantly informed 1 them, 6f their want of diligence m carry idg put the .work. The board had le : . contract to. Nathan for metalling on ; the ■ ;IBth. I requested them to fill up holes, .it had nothing to do with the carting of gravel. was m the employ of the Board p,t a lump suni for £10 tor overlooking three contracts. The extra; work was given almost at the commencement of the contract and -performed to-' -•■ trai'ds the end of : the completion of the 'cpntract. Igave them an extra 14 days 6dayg for work. .'; ' Cross-examined by Mr Hawkins : Atttntlqn was made at the first part of the cbhtract/ .' l did not charge for 14 days ex'tendeU-^iine.jv The charges were after ; iKeii4|h; •;;■;;;/ „, ,. .v ■ ■•■•-.:. . . .Gladstone was employed by ' . R o?4.;BQard!tp.pversee; the work referred 1 t6; S^aw. 'Armstrong several times insliec.tihg work. I recollect Armstrong 1 coming down one night but could not see .contractors. The contractors knew where ITtved. ■. Told them they had the tabling ! to. finish. Had several conversations with plaintiffs. Let them see that I was •Ippking after their work, They carried s^ r^y >^ v « h as far a^ tabling, then they left it to go ., on -another contract. Was, not finished., on the 14th. The metallmg \&d nothing to do with stopping them completing the tabling. Saw the .contractors end of March at the work. ' Caate of.the delay m contractors not finishing their work was that they had ; not men enough on. The contract was not finished until April. Armstrong went to look at the work and see me also. J ani ;a"ito. certain the contract was not completed until end of March or be«»in ning of April.. ; ■ :Crpss-examiried by Mr Hankins: Two men could do tabling m three days. 1' work as overseer hut not supposed to be there always.. . .. . ; ' ■■■'■ Gilbert Hansen on oath said, 1 am a employed, by Manawatn Road ! Board. Know Williams & Foley's con.tract. ,;Went with- Armstrong -to see work. It , war Jn . March.« r Cah't say: whether ,m, the early or latter' part. AvJi^liMn^w^n^toin^pect'-triS 1 wprlir" I = ioik him m: my trap. ; Armil-oiag told me the .work was not flhished. a ' J: The tabling was not done. - . Crpss-examined by Mr Hankins : dan't ' isay how many chains of tabling there ■ ™!S? ; ■ " :-' ; -- ■■:■■• -■.■•'•: Thomas Hoe,' aerk to Manawatu; Epafl Board, know the plaintiffs. Paid #M-ni two amounts of money when they came to get cheque they made a remark that it, waa very hard they should be fined.; . I told them I knew nothing about that, this was at the time they received the money. . They did not come to make enquiries hefore settliug. They did not asik fo>, thetEngineer wlien the con tractors-, when, they want their work inspected they sometimes come tome and sometimes to Armstrong's House. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins: Did not read receipt over to them before they siarned it. Paid little attention to what McWiUiam said. .'-"/'■Ei. J. Armstrong re-called, The metalling contract was. let on the 25th March. MustMiave baen the 27th before the metalling contractors entered upon their work. . •^^ er counsel had^ addressed th« Bench oh both sides., judgment was given for plaintiff for £10 -with costs 20s rad counselg'. fee^jajuinjea. , . ; ; >■ . - ; JasVLintoni Assignee book' debts m. e^a^ot.^Marih v;-Faffeta'.— Claim, £52168 74 r ;, M,^, Hanking for plaintiff. Mr CX F t Hayrkins for defendant. Same v. McColLr-^Claim, £22 10s. Mr Hankins for plaintiff. Mr G. F. Hawkins for defendant. . Adjourned by order of the. Court; till next sitting. Nathan and Co. y. G. Woodroofe.— Claim,. £32 >6s lOd; No appearence of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with coats 30^. :i.-. t