DRAINAGE DISPUTE.

Shannon News, 11 April 1924, Page 3

DRAINAGE DISPUTE.

SETTLED .BY ARBITRATION

The long standing dispute over the clearing out of the Otauru stream between the Borough (engineer (Mr. Edwards) on bphalf of the Borough Council, and the Contractors, Messrs Swindlehurst. Bros., was thrashed out at the Council Chambers on Friday evening, when a largo amount of evidence was taken- It had been agreed bjetween the parties that the matter be settled by Arbitration and Messrs Waring Taylor and E. Spencer acted as arbitrators, the former being appointed by the Coun- . cil and the latter by the contractors. Mr. Moody, solicitor, conducted the case for the contractors and Mr. Edwards acted on behalf of the Council. Mr. Moody, in outlining his case, said the engineer had inspected the work on several occasions, the first being 6n the 3rd October, whton he objected to the gravel deposits which still remained. Mr. W. Swindlehurst stated he took out gravel that was pointed out by engineer. He again inspected on October 13th and on this occasion again complained of the grav'd stilhjn crejek. This, was attended to. Between the second and third visit, which was on November sth, heavy rain brought down a large quantity of shingle. The work had been completed on October 17th,when the Swindlehursts sent word for the- engineer to inspect, but it was, three weeks before hto made an inspection, and in the meantime deposits had been brought down by the heavy rain in the latter part of October After the third visit the brothers had. waited on the Council asking them to'make an inspection as the engineer had refused ' to pass the work. The engineer; I at no. time refused to pass the work. Continuing, Mr. Moody said finally it had Jjecn agreed ,to settle the dispute by arbitration. He then called John Artiuir"'Ji?Vindlehurst, who stated he was a drarnsr.. residing at Shannon. He said with hishTother. he had carried out the work and contended it was satisfactory. The first por-j tion, from Burlihg's orchard to railway, the enginetor said he was not satisfied with, the bottom had not been taken from a-gradual grade and there were ripples. They had then taken out the shing’e and cut but timber in onto place pointed out by , the engineer.; The shingle had been deposited on the bank about 2ft. din to 3ft. from side, the average being over,the existing spoil. Found most shingle by ' the orchard ■which had been taken there, by the current. Just below the railway they had taken out gravel and deposited on road. On the engineer's second visit he again, refused to pass the work. My brother was then away. I again shovei- - led the shingle from the same place as before and deposited further back on the sides. The gravel put out between the bridge in Thompson Stifcot was removed by some person before the engineer again inspected. Hejhen called at Council office on October 17th to ask engineer to again inspect, but it was November 3th before the engineer made an inspection, but. witness was not present,*not knowing ha was going l to inspect. The ■weather was liesponsible for placing deposits where the shingle had been taken ..from: After the engineer had .again refused to pass the work, the witness and .his .brother had attended the Council meeting to . state their grievance, but practically got no hearing, the Mayor calling us to , order. He again asked the engineer to go down the stream and show' what ■was required and lie replied <‘l have been down half- a dozen time's and am not going again." He did not agree with the engineer that there was no moving shingle in the creek. We had since put in a couple of clays work as the Mayor had said if we did we would probably get our money. Witness said he had had lt> years' experience in draining and contended he had carried out the work according to the specifications.

Cross examined by the engineer lie replied he had only met the former on the drain on one occasion. Asked if he could swear the drain is 4ft deep, he replied he had not measured it. He again contended he had complied with the specifications’. To Mr. Moody: The drain was running full Avhen inspected, averaging 3ft to 4ft, in parts smaller. William Swindlehurst was then call"ed. He said he was with the engineer at the first inspection. The bottom from the culvert to Burling’s orchard was alright but from®!he, railway was not right. His objection there avus thie gravel which Avas ,caused by u .fairly big current in the stream. The shoals complained of were takqn out. There Avas no objection apart from the shingfc. The shingle and spoil tukeh out Avas quite easy to be seen. On the second inspection he still refused to pass it. Where the stream .crosses the road below the railway wfo had to remove shingle and what avc had previously taken out had gone and the engineer said it hafhr’t been taken out, and -again avc removed shingle, hie objected to for the third, time. To the -engineer;- The gravel accumulated- by Buffings and the bridge. On the second occasion I think wte had finished the : , Avork. Later -ho said they

had completed the, 1 job. B'ctwcen October 27th and November sth heavy • rain fell, whiCh had the affect, of bringing down more shingle. Could not say the date of completion of the Work. He knew the creek and the shingle came from the old smithy site. The affect of widening the bank caused a bigger volume of water which brought down the gravel. The engineer said he 'would not pass the drain as The work had not been carried out to specifications. In places there, was batter on the banks and in some none at all. There is existing spoil in places. He put some on top and even about 2ft 6in away from the bank, the averagb distance from the bank being about 2ft 6in. All the undergrowth had been trimrrtcd from the sides of the stream. Had not seen the stream lately. The engineer: You never tlircAv the spoil over the Ibdgo. Witness: I maintain I did and if it is there it has slipped down since the work Avas completed. JEngineerto witness; -Do you reinom*

ber me saying your work was farcical 1 ? —No! % shoals are the same as when he first Where is the mfetal? Down by Burling V orchard and'if you go down there with a pick you will find it. The engineer: Where has the spoil gone that you took out? Witness: It is there now. The engineer: Why didn't you take the timber out. Witness: I did. How did it get back then? It was cut out. The engineer: Your excuse then for not taking it out was that the police would not allow the use of gelignite within the Borough. To Mr. Moody: The timber is down by Burling's orchard and docs not obstruct the stream, the water ripples over. About -± inches from the bottom we cut out the timber as near as we cOuld and the engineer said he was satisfied. There was timber in the drain below the water which the engineer saw. We deepened the stream down to what we considered the original bottom about 2ft Gin wide and took spoil well below the water. Ludwig Christophlerson said, he knew the stream well. When he saw the Swindlchursts working there early in October they had about four chains to go and appeared to be making a‘satisfactory job. There was a good deal in the stream tltfen, but it is all gone now. lie said he was referring to the piece from the railway to his place. The gravel shifted about one and a-h’alf chains and was 2ft Gin deep. There was heavy rain about that .time and the stream was bank high. The gravel came from further up the creek. ■ To Mr. Spencer: It shifts in large quantities. Ho had lived alongside the stream for ten ytears, and it was only the last three or four months the stream had been clear,

Alfred Ernest. Hyde, land ' agent, Shannon, said he knew the drain well and saw it almost immediately after

the completion and in his opinion the contractors had made a good job of ite In regard to the batter the old one was irre-gular and he saw that it had been kept jll>~..conformity. In some places it had slid in Cldy about a foot at the bottom at the lower (\ud and w'hen finished was a full sft din. Tiic bottoiirof the stream had been rempvcd right down to the clay in front of his house.

■To. Mr. Taylor: He maintained the metal had been removed and that .the spoil is mostly covered now with grass. The growth on the ,side of the stream was trimmhd clear, but is now wcllovregrown.

Witness continuing: During the heavy rain in‘October l it was the only occasion no water had come over the banks. When the-fresh subsided there were llittle (islands dotted here and there in the stream.. The gravel putabove the bank on the roadside was carted away to metal a track. In his opinion they went down to the hard bottom, but did not go close up to see what the spoil was. The drain com-, pared favourably with others he had seen. . :

The engineer: What size was the shingle? if inches downwards.

Witness said he had gone from end to end of the stream shortly after conn pletion. Being a Cr. he Avas desirous of the Council getting a good job, also that he was anxious .that the ’clearing of. thie drain would prevent his property being flooded. There had bean no floods since.

The engineer: If it is 7ft 7in at the bridge hoAv did the Avater get aAvay. • Witness: It did not get away, it flooded the properties. This was all the CAudenee for the contractors.

The engineer then called the Town Clerk (Mr. J. T. Bovis) avlio gaA r e evidence re the accepting and conditions of Messrs SAvindlehurst’s tender and the engineer’s reports on the work. The engineer. Do you remember ringing me up at Palmerston North to the effect that Mr. Swindlehurst -wanted me to go and inspect the Avorlc. What reply did I give? Witness: I really don’t remember. The engineer: Did’ I not ask you to ask Mr. Swindlehurst if he had done anything to the -drain since I last saw him.

Witness: I .Avon ’t ’say on oath, but I ha\ r o a slight recollection; , The engineer: Do you remember a coiiA’crsation AA-ith Mr. SAvindlchurst? When he said he would throw it up altogether.—Witness: It Avas not the contractor who said tlyit. William Murdoch, Mayor of Shannon, said he conducted the meeting of the Council the night Messrs Swindlehurst Avaited on them and Avhen asked if the drain had boon cleaned and the bank and bottom cut according to specifications he had said it Avas not practicable as it Avould cause a ripple in another place. He said the spoil had been throAvn one foot clear over the bank and the groAvth on. sides had been cleared and trimmed. Hie had practically admitted he had not carried out thc Avork according to specifications. ‘When asked if it"Avas a fact he admitted he had not carried cr.t the oCTuract ho contended lie had. To Mr. Moody: Witness denied the statement that Swindlohursts did not get a fair hearing at the meeting. The engineer had said the contractors ■ krtew AA-hat Avas required, but after said he Avould go and show what ho requir-' ed. I made an inspection myself after the deputation to the Council of the portion near the bridge and could see from the specifications that work AA-as not satisfactory. They had certainly improved it. He Avas of opinion that after heaA-y rain shingle would come down. He AA'anted to be fair to the men and pointed out that the piece of land from the raihvay to Thompson Street which used to hie a pool of Avater in*wct weather is-now free.

Titos. Gardner, chairman of tite ißoad Committee said he had never seen metal in the old stream. Thp metal came in small quantities owing to the velocity of water from gravel pit near Mrs. Butts. Saw no metal on the banks that had been taken out. After the two days work which had been put in recently by the Swindliehursts down by the orchard lie had seen sand that had been removed. The stumps had never been touched. ( The spoil,had been put on top of thp old spoil, very little had

been put over the old ridge. The saw them. To Mr. Moody: He went over practically all the work. They had not gone down to the existing djepth to take s P°il ou b He made his inspection immediately after they had put in the two days' work in Eebruary. ) To Mr. Spencer: He considered the I value of tlfe work done at the time of J inspection in February at 6s per chain. I Edward Butt, member of the Road I. Committee, said he was a practical man and went over the drain in company with Cr. Gardner and the engineer, with the idea of having it cleared ( prior to the contract being let. He | had not inspected the lower portion but the piece from the bridge, which "ic had seen practically daily, had not been done according Ho specifications. It was only mullock that had been removed and placed on the ledges. On looking up the drain the ripples could be seen. There was gravel in the stream and it was still there. To the best of his knowledge no gravel had been taken out in October. By the old concrete the hole was there before they started and is stilF tltere. The engineer: What value do you place on the work from tks railway to the concrete? Witness: About 8s per chain. Our object in having the work done was to got these irtegularities out of the bottom.

Samuel Mitchell, experienced drainer of many years' standing, said he had been over the drain that day. He saw it when the tendpr was let and there is no difference in the state of the bottom now. If the metal comes down the stream it gets over the knobs and drops into quiet places and stops thete. Tlie bottom formation has not been altered during the past year. Mr. Spencer asked what value witness placed on the work. He said lie did not think it could be done for tine price according to the specifications. r Io Mr. Moody: Before the work commenced he had seen a thin coating of shingle in the stream. He said the wifith at the bottom would be from 2tt 6in to 3ft. Hie had noticed no increase in shingle, the metal under the bridge being quite firm and hard. There are beds of metal practically all the way down. In regard to the batter you could scie it hew even if there had been a flood diming the past three !T)ic contfactcfis tuivfc\ njof. deepened the stream and there are no signs of spoil having been put out. Mr. Spoilciei asked what witness estimated it would cost to put drains i$ order now. He considered about £25. The work they had done was only ordinary cleaning,'which-is. ..worth 6s per chain. It, would be worth 30s per chain to do the work according to the specifications.

; Robert Edwards, engineer, in stating what the specifications required, said the' reason for depositing the spoil one foot over the ridge was that the Road Committee considered the drain would ■ have to be widened later on. He said the m’etal came in the stream when the cut was made and had not.come down recently. Hp showed samples of stone to bear this out. ; The batter was not in many places, tlie bank being straight up and down. He contended the men had made no attempt to carry "out the ,work. He had complained frequently and was not unreasonable, but , only wanted something near, the mark and had. not got it.

In ans Aver to Mr. Moody Avitness said previous contractors had left a batter on the stream, but there Avas A r ery. little uoav.

Mr. Moody: The specifications say the existing batter. - Tbt> engineer: In parts it is straight up, and down Avith a groAvth on top. They had taken out the growth but nothing- from the bottom. At no tinic did I express Aiy self as being- satisfied and I ahvays spoke to them in a proper .Avay.

Mr. Moody: Did you notify Swindlchurst you Avere going to inspect on November sth.

The engineer: - The Toavh Clerk said lie could not get hold of SAvindlehursts as they were working at tiro sivainp. He did not remember at the Council meeting the" brothers asking him to go doAvn. After a suggestion from one of , the Councillors he said he Avould go doAvn but meant business. When he did inspect the work was still irregular and AA-as not what AA r as required and is not yet right. The job AA-as let Avith a vieAv to the bottom being taken out at a regular grade. After Mr. Moody had addressed the arbitrators, Messrs Taylor aud Spoil - cer announced they Avould reserve their dccision until Saturday morning. The amount claimed was £55 9s 7d, less £27 progress payment made, leav'"mt 11 I*- a I £l . nC(J °f £2B 9s 7d in dispute. Tlk> arbitrators gave their decision subsequently as follows-:

. (1) Did the contractor fulfil the contract according to specification.— No. (2) If .not, what amount of Avork did he do and what A\ r as the value.—We consider that the specifications s:utb. .ffi-Rtetl 10. ItS- W@r©- llllSie.ad.ing~ to the contractor and we value the work done at 10s per chain throughout, and further Ave aAVard to the contractor a further sum of £l2, for work done which Ave consider he was at least partially justified in thanking from the wording of the specifications was outside his contract. In regard to costs of this reference each party is to bear its own costs.. The amount claimed by the contractor for 42 chains at 38s per chain and 342 chains 'at 23s per chain.