DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 47, 23 July 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY.

Re Nathaniel Bartlett Deceased.*; '.; 'v Mr Pirani applied for Order of Prpbxte of Will:.-: ■ : :^-y.^ : \-'-'-:.r---;fc'i'k i &i «V#i'.' Granted. ■■.... . :' ' ! i>. Be.Oarlßuckendahl..;, , : . '-..... Mr Pirani^^ appUed. for lettora of^'Administation. ' - • ■■* r-f' ' 'Granted.. . •' .. ■ .-^V.vv. jsi^^vr'" Manawatu County Council' Vi'Duncah' A. Pool? and Joseph TrasW. \. Mr J. H.Hankins with him'MrFitzher.bert for plaintiffs, Mr A. S. Baker for defendants. ■ h > '.-.'• ■:■■. Before a Jury of 4. viz.-, Richard Leary (foreman), John Knight, Win. Knight, Isaac I/ovelock. " \i-' Mr Fitzherbert took exception to particulars and said statement of defence' not m accordance with District Court rules not being an "explicit statement but; only a general charge of misrepresenta- . tions. The defendant's pleas were of an affirmative nature,- and asked His' Honor to rule as to procedure of case, viz., that the defendants should confine themselves to the contract, the breach and the damages.,'''' " ".."■' • ■ \" : - . '':^ : ■' ■ • ■ Mr Baker 1 for defendants differed, and said that contention was of no effect that the pleas were m the affirmative. ; His Honor agreed with counsel for plaintiffs, and : ruled that the plaintiff should prove his case, the defendant his defence, and the plaintiff* would? then ;he allowed to bring rebutting evidence.. , , : i : .• . Mr Hankins opened the page for plaintiffs as follows :— -This is '•'; an action brought by the Manawatu County Council for breach of . contract for digging drains m Motoa swamp, Foxton. The history of the case.' was tint m March, 1884, the Council called for tenders, .for deepening drains. The Council, intended to prove defendant's contracted on this occasion under tender [read] for £316. The Council thought this amount too high and on January 23rd called iresh tenders, [read] . The defendants. tendered m response thereto at a lump sum of £105, Bs, which..the Council accepted. The terms of the contract, specifications, &c, were agreed upon by defendants and they signed agreement. Defendants went to work upon the contract, but up to the time of their throwing :. up the contract never complained as to »isre.presentatidns, bat on the contrary admitted every thing to becorrect as the. Engineer; who took levels would testify. .They constructed about |a mile of the contract. In January defendants received cheque for £25,' but -did not complain or intimate that they intended to throw up the contract. On the 9th March a letter [read] was received from defendants declining to complete the work, as afterhaving worked hard for a month they we unable to pay : yrages. -Up to that time they had not complained of specifications. All they asked for was' some extra amount ;^.fter they threw- up the contract, Mr Guerin entered into contract to complete same. /*• We claim £100 ; for • damages, namely, that it cost the Council £100 moire to complete work than they originally contracted for with defendants. [Left Sitting]