COUNCIL SUED.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 274, 7 February 1929, Page 4

COUNCIL SUED.

ROADING CONTRACT. And a Free Offer. A difference of opinion as to what was decided at a conference held at Mr. A. G. Pearce’s house at Puketurua, between Mr. H. S. Weightman, and the member for Putaruru riding and the engineer to the Matamata County Council, resulted in the firstnamed suing the council for the sum of £76 10s 3d, being the balance alleged to be due cn a carting contract. Mr. J. S. Reid (Hewitt and Reid) appeared for the plaintiff, and M¥. S. Lewis, Cambridge, looked after the council’s interests.

H. S. Weightman stated that in 1927 he made an offer to the Matamata County Council to cart shingle from Bent’s pit at 5s 6d per yard to be spread on a Puketurua road from Peter’s farm to Pearce’s gate. Also, if the council would quarry the rhyolite on his farm, he would do the carting free for the portion of the road between his farm and Pearce’s gate. His object in doing this was because the road was impassable. Later he met the engineer and riding member at Mr. Pearce’s house and the offer of 5s 6d was turned down, as it was not convenient for the county to provide men to assist. However, a further 6d per yard was allowed and he was to do his own loading. A further promise was made by the county to put 500 yards of spoil in a filling and this was to be covered with rhyolite which was lying on the roadside for the purpose. In the event of the rhyolite being carted he was to cover it with shingle free. Seven hundred and fifty-two yards were delivered under the council’s supervision when the work was stopped by the council’s foreman. There was a mile of road still to be done at 6s per yard. He had doubled his estimate of free carting by delivering 350 yards. This work was to be done at his' leisure. There was no suggestion that the free carting and what he was paid for were part of the same contract. The market price of what he charged 6s for was about 8s per yard. G. A. Pearce gave his version of the conference, corroborating the previous witness. The road was now in a scandalous state.

Cross-examined, witness stated he didn’t know the Huki road was a great strain on the riding funds. He was satisfied that the two offers were distinct though they were for the same piece of road. In reply to an observation from the Bench, it was stated the riding member was chiefly concerned with the proposition. T. E. Ashley, contractor, Waotu, stated he assisted with the contract, which was stopped on September 20 by Mr. Elmslie, the foreman. The road was in an impassable state and they had to pull each other out. It was very hard for him to get through with an empty lorry. He had fallen in many holes himself. Mr. Lewis then applied for a nonsuit on the ground there was an assignment of the contract. The Magistrate: You can’t blow hot and cold, denying a contract and then stating there was an assignment. Mr. Lewis then raised a further non-suit point ih that the case was sprung on them without the usual notice. The Magistrate: You have had six months. Mr. Lewis stated that there had been considerable negotiations with the riding member, but he was unable to bind the council and there were several requirements not complied with as a contract for over £2O should be in writing. These requirements would he waived if covered by resolution of the council. Replying to the Magistrate, Mr. Reid stated the necessary notice had been given. The letter he wrote to the council on July 2 proved that. It had not been sprung on anyone and he had only desired his client’s evidence to be taken, as he had been ordered to a sanitorium. The Magistrate stated that the amendment to the Act created an interesting point which he would take time to consider. He could not say when his judgment would be delivered, as it depended on him getting to Hamilton.