A CONTRACTOR'S CASE.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1040, 22 June 1883, Page 2

A CONTRACTOR'S CASE.

BAILEY & SEAGER V. PATEA ■ S.S. CO.

At the R.M. Court this morning, before C A Wray, Esq., R.M., Bailey and Seager, contractors for the v s.s. Waveiley, sued the Patea Steam Ship Co. for £l5O. Mr Hnmerton appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Barton for the defendants. Mr Barton said the facts of the case were these : Defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiffs last year for the construction of the new steamship Waverley. It was arranged that the contract price would be £B7OO, and it was arranged that any extras to be done would be done by the contractor at the request of an inspector—Captain Gibbons—and proportionate time allowed. After the contract time was up, the contractors were liable to bo charged at the rate of £2O per week for each week the steamer remained unfinished. Altogether there was a delay of 14 weeks, but the inspector had deducted 6 and consequently £l6O should come off the contract money. The Company offered to pay the contractors on certain terras viz—the contract money plus extras less £l5O. The contractors then refused to give, up the steamer, when to save further trouble the £l5O was paid by the Company into the hands of a third person. The action was now brought by the contractors to" recover the money from the Company. He would call William John Gibbons, who said : I am a master mariner, and am commander of the Waverley. I partly prepared the plan and specifications for the boat. I was appointed the inspector for the work of the building of the boat. I wentlo Auckland for that purpose shortly after the contract was signed—the 11th day of August, 1882. 1 was there the whole time—until the ship was handed over. During the course of the work, it became necessary to order a few extras and alterations. The contract price was £3700. That is the first item in the particulars of demands; there follow a number of extras which I have read. Referring to all the items which follow, with the exception of the item “commission on cheques from Patea” they are not items which were included in the original contract price. The principal part of the item, Seager’s account, £133 16s, was for repairs to the boiler, and additional to what was specified in the contract, and for this I allowed 14 days extra. That time was quite sufficient to allow for that item. The item, fixing tank, 12s, and ladder, 10s, would take a few hours. The items, two mattrasses and upholstery, £25, are an extra, but they were not ordered by me as inspector The contractor was under the impression that they were included in his contract. The contractor came to me, and told me he had made a contract to do the whole of the upholstery, and that on referring to the contract he found that part of the upholstery was not to be done by him, but by the owners, and at the plaintiff’s request I agreed to uphold his contract—that is, to treat it as an extra. This item, upholstery £25, would not have occasioned any loss of time. As to the item—building two boats, as agreed, £25, — this was not an extra ordered by me in my characte.l of inspector, and therefore no time would be allowed to the contractor for that item. I, acting as agent for the Company in the matter, arranged with Bailey—who is a boat-builder as well as ship-builder—for the building of these two boats. The contract between us was that he was to build the two boats for the sura of £25, and my giving hi rathe old boat belonging to the “ Pntea.” The building of the boats was done by men in a different department to that of the shipbuilding. At the conclusion of the contract, I gave a certificate specifying to the builders showing what extra time I allowed—either 5 or 6 weeks, Fourteen days in addition to the fourteen days allowed for Seagar’s contract would have been an ample allowance for all the other items, but I allowed 3 or 4 weeks as apparent from the written certificate which I gave to the plaintiffs. The contract time was up on the 11th February. The ship was handed over to me on the 21st May, 1£ hours before I left Auckland. I gave the certificate that the vessel was complete to Mr Horner the manager of the Company, I think, on the 19 th. The delay over the contract time up to the delivery of the ship would be about 14 weeks. Assuming that 1 allowed 6 weeks for extras, the contract would be eight weeks overtime. During the construction of the ship X was never absent for more than one

day, except : on one occasion when I was absent 3 days. I attribute the delay for which. I have allowed, to several causes, the principal one being Mr Seager having .neglected to make any arrangements with Mr Macefield, sub-contractor, as to any specified time for making the repairs to the engines mentioned in, the contract. Through Macefield’s delay work was stopped almost at times. Another reason was Mr Seager drunkenness. During the latter part of the contract he seemed to be continually under the influence of drink. Previous to my giving the certificate I went through the accounts, partly with Bailey and partly with Bailey and Seager. On the 25th of February I gave them written notice that the penalties would be enforced by the Company. On that occasion .Bailey said that he would not pay any penalties, he would make Seagar pay as it was entirely his fault that the work was so much behind-hand. Assuming even that the item building two boats as agreed, had been ordered by me as inspector as an extra, and not as before stated, the time allowed by me for extras would be sufficient to cover the building of the boats ; ten days would have been sufficient time to allow for it as an extra. My conscience does not in any way reproach me for not having allowed the contractors enough time, but on the contrary fallowed them too much. (Left sitting.)