THE OPIHI BRIDGE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2789, 2 March 1882, Page 2

THE OPIHI BRIDGE.

At the E.M. Court, Christchurch, yesterday, before Mr Beetham, R.M., the following case was heard : Thomas and Hill v. Temuka Road Board, —Clain £3B 7s Id, balance due on a contract. Mr Stringer for plaintiff ; Mr Harper for defendants. Plaintiffs had been the contractors with the Road Board for the erection of a bridge over the opihi. The work had been completed, passed, and taken over by the Road Board on Sep. 30 last. There was an agreement that plaintiffs should maintain the bridge in good order for two months from completion. On Nov. 21 they had received notice from the engineer to execute certain maintenance repairs. This they refused to do, on the grounds that, as the Road Board had at that time let another contract for tarring and painting the bridge, which work was in progress, they would have been unable to satisfactorily carry out the work required—-re-scrowing the bolts of the bridge—while the tarring was being done. They also considered that as the Board had let another contract on the bridge, the work had been taken out of their hands. The defendants, after plaintiffs refused, had the work executed by another party at a cost of £l6 10s 4d; and they proposed to deduct this amount from the balance due on the plaintiff* contract. The evidence for the defence had been taken at Temuka. The .facts were admitted, the only question being whether the defendant’s were entitled to deduct the £l6 10s 4d from the amount of the claim, or whether the plaintiffs were not justified in refusing to do the work under the circumstances. His Worship considered that in the

absence of evidence to the contrary, he must accept the plaintiffs’ statement that they considered it would ho a " risky work ” for them to undertake in screwing up the bridge before the tar was dry, and gave judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and costs £2 7s.