RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—CARLYLE.

Patea Mail, Volume III, Issue 259, 3 October 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—CARLYLE.

e Tuesday, October 2. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and 11. F. Christie, Esq , J.P.) DISPUTED contract. James Bowie v Patea East Road Board f. claim £25, for work performed by the plaintiff. Mr Fitzhcrhort, of Wangaimi, appeared for plaintiff ; and the Rev A. Dasent, Chairman of the Patea East Road Board, appeared on behalf of the Board. Mr Fitzherbert briefly explained the facts of the case, and proceeded to call witnesses.

James Bowie, contractor, deposed to havin'* tendered for certain works, after having inspected plans and specifications. Tberc”were three separate contracts, and his tender was in each case accepted. Work was not immediately commenced, on account of communication received by him from the Board. Subsequently No. I contract was commenced and finished. Had found a difference of 5 feet between the plan and specification, and on communicating with the Board, was told it did not matter ; that the cutting would have to be made uniform, no matter what had to be removed. Plaintiff suggested arbitration, but the Board would not allow of it. He took a maximum grade from the plan. Sent in his account to the Board, and received payment for No. 1 and 2 contracts, but not for No. 3. Got a professional engineer (Mr Bees) to go over the He asked to see plans, but the Board refused to allow engineer t& see them. Plaintiff received specification of No. 3 contract, after signing, and when the work was in progress. One of the members of the Board (Mr Gower) told plaintiff he should be careful, or the Board would make it warm for him. Plaintiff, on being cross-examined, stated that the clerk referred him to Mr Gibson, who told him lie was not sure as to the correctness of the specifications. In going over the ground, he had 'only inspected 1 and 2 contracts. Proposed' arbitration when four or live members of the Board were present,, and spoke to Mr Gibson. Came into town purposely to arrange the matter. He also came to receive money for work performed. No offer was made by the Board as tosettlement.

S. Black deposed to being present during measurement of the work, ihe greatest depth was 5 feet 3 inches. There was no uniform grade. 15 11. McLauglan deposed to taking contract for earth work from the Patea East Road Board for £29. Work had been done there before to which be paid no attention, hut carxied the cutting right through. Tire greatest depth was 9 feet 2 indies'. It ran out to 5 chains. Made no calculation of earth taken out. The nature of the soil was stone and clay. Had to use the pick. Considered Mr Bowie’s work worth £l6. Mr Fitzberbert read evidence of the engineer who had examined the work, and stated that the specifications differed entirely from the plans, and that the work had been fairly and honestly carried out according to the specifications* Rev Mr Dasent stated that the plans had been prepared by two members of the Board—Messrs Gibson and Syme. Mr Fitzberbert to Mr. Dasent stating matters which should only be given on oath. Mr Dasent continued, and explained the position of the Board in the matter. John Gibson was examined and deposed to being appointed by the Board to peg off the ground along with Mr Syme. The plans were simply drawn for the information of the Board. On being applied to for measurements he recommended plaintiff to go over the ground himself, the pegs denoted the number of chains. Witnessdeposed to measuring the ground, and

found tlic depth scaVcely b feet, which was between contract No 1 and 2. The witness wr.s cross-examined. After D. M. Harris had given evidence, ilr Bowie was re-called, after which Mr Fitzhcrbert recapitulated the chief points in the evidence, and contended that the work had been honestly performed. He commented on the remissness 'of the responsible members of the Board in not seeing that the pla'ns were 'correctly made out. The Bench ruled that the fault lay with the Board in not having the plans drawn hy a professional man, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £ls, and costs amounting to £ll 17s.