AKA AKA CHEESE FACTORY.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 206, 5 September 1916, Page 2

AKA AKA CHEESE FACTORY.

Building Dispute. Arbitration Proceedings. A dispute that baa arisen between Mr J. T. Hewson. ot Pukekobe, the contractor who waa responsible for tbe erection of tbe Aka Aka Cheese Factoiy, and the Waikato Co-op. Chsesu Co., Ltd., the proprietors of th; factory, was the subject of arbitration proceedings at tte Pukekobe Court House last Friday, Mr Ashley Hunter, M I C E , Bitting as empire with Messrs T. E. N. Wade, architect, of Auckland, and Mr J. W. Warren, architect, of Hamilton, as arbitrators in Mr Hewson's and tbe Cheese Company's interests respectively. Mr J. G. Haddow acted as Counsel for Mr Hewson and Mr F. C. Daniel), the Company's architect, conducted the case for the Company. Tbe proceedings commenced at 1 p.m., and the Court did not finally adjiurn until 11 p.m. The findings will he announced in due course. The claim put forward for Mr Hewson was as follows:—Delay hi architect giving possession of site, £l4; delay by architect not coming on job to fix levels, £SO; loss occasioned by delay in supplying metals, necessitating engaging other men, the first lot refusing to wait, £26; further damage owing to non-delivery of metal, the work being pushed into bad weather, £26 10b; cost of Mr Daniell's expert fixing tank, £3; water tight paste, £2; extra cost of carting sand occasioned by flooding, £9 ss; extra cost of rest ot building occasioned by the delay apart from the onrete wotk, £6O; total, £lB5 15s together with £254 6s I Id balance due on original contract, a' grosa total of £440 0s lid, and further interest on tbe amount of the unpaid certificate. The Company counter-claimed for £5lB 16s lid, that sum including £453 17s 3d scheduled tor loss, basei on the January supply, through butter having to be manufactured iostead of cheese tor 49 days jhe penoi over which tbe contract was in arrears'), butter-fat for cheese being valued at 3d per lb more than for butter, ancb loss bei.g £9 5s 3d per day or £453 17? 3d for 49 days. Other items claimed for were manager's wages for 49 days £26 17a lid, rent of temporary bouse tor manager £7 103, interest on payments made on buildings and machinery for i 9 days £l2 17a 9d, ard 177 yard) of tilling plac?d in position by Company for contractor, at 2s per yard, £l7 14s. During the cour«e ot the case the counter-claim was amended, £174 being claimed by the Company under the "penalty" clauie of the contract at £3 per day for fiftyeight days arrears of contract in place of other items as scheduled. Mr Haddow, for Mr Hewson, also withdrew the portion of tbe claim relitive to interest on an unpaid certificate of £35.

At the outset, Mr Daciielf formally objected to Mr Hewson being represented by Counael, but tbe objection was over-ruled by tbe Umpire. Both claims were taken together, Mr Hewson figuring as tbe plaintiff and tbe Company as tbe defending party. , Mr Hewson deposed that the tenders lor the erection of tbe factory closed on the 14th August of last year and he was notified tour days later that his tender had been accepted. The specifications were Bigned up on tbe 24th August. Two weeks later the architect gave "the line of front and side" on the site, and told him to keep the buildings parallel with the road. Instead of coming back again on Septamber 13tb, as arranged, the architect did not arrive until the 21st, when he (the architect) decided on tbe permanent levels of the making rcom. On the same date the architect advised plaintiff that he could proceed with the contract. The specifications, however, had not been complied with as there was no metal on tbe site as specified. There was some, however, on the landing some yards away, and the architect said he would s*e that it was put on the site. On tbe suggestion of Mr Kidd, a director of the Company, plaintiff tried tog cart tbe sand with his own cart, but bis horse got bogged. The first losd of stone wag placed on tbe site on September 27th, but it was only sufficient to keep four men employed making cement, etc., for four days and a-half. The next lot did not arrive until the Ist October, but thereafter they were fully supplied," Through the delay in the stone three men left the job and would not return, and he had great difficulty in replacing them. When the stone did arrive on the job all bands were put to mixing cement S3 that the job could be pushed forward. Delay was also occasioned as the result of the whey tank being below the level of the Aka Aka stream, with the result that the water could not be keot out. and as a reiult ot the delays he was pushed into bad weather, the months ot October and November being particularly boisterous and wet. Consequently it was almoßt impossible to proceed with tbe work. September, however, was a good month aod had tbe material come to hand, as it should have done, tbe contrsct could have been completed in tbe specified time. The nature of the weather in November was such that instead of the plumber finishing bis work :n three weeks be wai on the job seven or eight weeks. He (plaintiff) ordered the timber tor tbe job two days after signing the contract, but received a letter from the Timber Company to the effect that the timber was held up. The contract was to have been finished on tbe 31st October. He first went on th 9 site on the 6th September, and lis foreman, Mr Woods, tbe day following. Mr Daniell sent an expert to stop the leak in the whey tank, but be failed to do so. Hai they been able to work on the whey tank earlier the leak would not have arisen. Through the Waikato river being in Hood it was impossible to get sand from its banks, and he was forced to cart it from Pukekohe at 18s 6d per yard, whereaafl the river freight would or.l? Ir vH been ss. Tbe men worked overtime on the factory tnd cottage, fori which he paid. By request, he submitted a price for additions to the manager's quarters, acd while awaiting a reply deferred sending for orders. This also delayed him, <ia his pri<v « ,3 not ar<vpted. Richard Gordon, plumber,

of negotiations with plaintiff he submitted a prica for the plumbing work on tbs job, ?nd it was accepted on the Bth Octobsr. He ordered the material on the 26th y" and a start was made on the job MPbout the 2nd November. Instead of the work taking only three weeks it took six wetks to put the iron on the factory roof alone. He had a man on the job but nothing was done for days and days as a result of the boisterous weather delaying operations. Williip Peaice, carpenter, of Pukekohe, who was employed on the job by plaintiff deposed that when be arrived on the site about the first or second week in September theri were a few yards of metal on the landing—about 50 yards from the site. On the Friday, following his arrival the man who was on the concrete work. Attewell, left the job on account of the shortage of mstal. When the metal arrived all hands were put on to mix cement, etc., with a view of pushiog the contract ahead. During the bad weather that prevailed the huts were blown down and tbs roof of the cement shed was lifted off. Considerable attention was paid to the whey tank, which was a "perfect mess." The plasterers worked at it all one night but could not keep it dry. Edward Woodham Wood stated in evidence that he went on the job as foreman on the 7th September, but was delayed two or three weeks waiting for the levels from the architect. The sub-contractor fur the cement work arrived about the 25th or 27th September, about the same date as metal was placed on the site, but left on the Ist October through a shortage of metal. There was a vast difference between - having the metal placed on the landing and on the site, as the road between the two was heavy, so much so that tbe carter stopped on one occasion and a director had to cart it. If the levels bad been procurable when they were first sought after and plenty of Bhingle and labour had been available the contract would h«7e been completed in the specified time. The agitator arrived late —about the first or second week in December. At this stage evidence for defendant company was called. Mr Harvey, manager of the Aka Aka Cheese factory, said he acted as cleric of works for the erection of the building as from October 3rd. With the exception of the site having been marked out very little work had besn done up to the 4th October. The whey tank erected by Mr Hewson was unsatisfactory. it leaked, and although an expert was engaged to try and repair it it continued to leak and as a result the cheese making was delayed. The shelving io the curing room, at the commencement of operations, was rot thoroubgly seasoned; coosqeuently the cheeee would not dry. The workmanship on the building was satistactory, but the contract should have been completed earlier with the number of men there were engaged. When he took pessession of the cottage on the 31st December it was not completed, and two of the workmen were living in it. Although he assisted to cart the timber on to the site no complaint was ever mads to him that the stone was not coming to hand quickly enough.—By Mr Wade: Some concrete work had been completed when be arrived on the site. —By Mr Haddovr: He knew that there was a difficulty, during the period of the erection of the shelves, in securing seasoned timber. Mr Richard Walters, chairman of directors ot the Aka Aka Cheese Factory Co., related the circumstances leading up to the fixing of the site. Witness, the architect and plaintiff were present on the occßßiun. and there was about four hundred feet ot timber which witness bad carted lying on the site. He remembered plaintiff drawirg bis attention to the fact that whereas the specifications provided for metal to be landed on the site it was placed on the landing. Witness made arrangements whereby he was to cart tibmer and stone at plaintiff's pleasure, and, further, be recollected arrangements being made by Metsrs Landen and A. Kidd, directors of the Company, tbe architect and himself, on the 21st Septemoer, to the effect that a Mr Parry wss to do the carting in the event of plaintiff not doing it. The progress of the contract was discussed twice, once at a conference held on the sth October, at which Mr W. Gcodfellow, the managing director, was directed to approach plaintiff in the matter. On the 6th December a further meeting of directors was held and it was decided to assiot plaintiff by executiig certain earth work, ar.d a working-bee did it.—By Mr Haddow: Arrangements were made to pay Mi Hewson 2s per yard for any metal he carted trom the landing on to the site. Witness offered to secure labnur for plaintiff, but the suggestion was never accepted.— By Mr L'aniell: Mr Hewson never complained to him of a shortage of metal.

Mr Alfred Kidd, a director, gave corroborative evidetce in reapcet to ths conferences held by the directors. Mr Latiden, another director, also corroborated, and added that there was metal at the larding on the 21st September when he attended cne of the conference, and he believed there was meul there previous to that date. He had carted limber on to the sit 3 for plaintiff, but had not so far mac?e any charge for the work. It »a3 not until tome coosic'erable time after the contract had started that plaintiff mentioned cssubl ly to him that there was a shortage of metal. The work appeared to him to progress slowly—By Mr Haddow: It was not at the Cheese Cumpai.y'fl cuggestion that he had carted lot plaintiff. Mr William GoodfclloF, mailing director, outlined tie circumstances leading up to the occasion when he asked plaioliff to "epceti up" the contract. --By Mr Haddow: He ccuM not fix ths date when the agitator was landed at Aka Aka. plaintiff recalled by Mr Danit II taid that when he first went to the there was metal on the landing ■ but he was not aware that it W8? I for him. Mr Walters never offered J to cart the metal. He did, however, cart timber. An interrupti n ht thu juncture occurred by a couple of ir dividuals, who were urder the influence of drink, audibly tendering advice to Mr Panicll in regard U, Hip ffißrand refusing to remain silent. By

Court" was temporarily cleared, but subsequently one of the men returned and makinghis presence again objectiui able he was removed by the police and was taken into custody for drunkenness. Continuing, plaintiff said that he complained to tha architect on one occasion, when the directors were present, that the metal was late in arriving.—By Mr Wade: The contract was completed on the 6th February, 1916. At this stage the Umpire informed Mr Daniell that tbe claim for loss of commission on cheese wa? not valid, and at the Umpire's suggestion the counter-claim was amended eccordirgly. Mr Darnell was the concluding witness. He said that plaintiff was to have advised him when th? material was on the job, but he failed to do so. Of several factories erected under similar conditions for the Company last year, the Aka Aka cheese factory was tbe only one that went over the contract period. Progress on both tbe factory and cottage was slow. On tbe stb November no work had been done to cottage for three weeks. On the 11th January men were sent on to the job because plaintiff was behind with the contract?. No complaint of a shortage of metal was ever made to bim. The Umpire's findings were reserved.