CALLIOPE DOCK DISPUTE LANIGAN'S CLAIM, £18,000. Auckland, Feb. 20.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 345, 23 February 1889, Page 6

CALLIOPE DOCK DISPUTE LANIGAN'S CLAIM, £18,000. Auckland, Feb. 20.

Tn is Harbour Board has at last taken some ' definite action in reference to Mr Piorce Lanigan's claim for £18,000, principally for extras charged on account ot the Calliope Dock contract, a unanimous decision having been arrived at by the Board yesterday afternoon to refer the account furnished to Air Lanigan to Mr Ware, arbiter, for his award. Mr C. B. Stone moved, in accordance •with notice of motion, "That with the view of ascertaining the liability of the Board in refeience to Calliope Dock contract, the account furnished by Mr Linigan dated 10th October, 1888, be submitted to the arbiter, Mr William Ware, for his awaid, in terms of Section 43 of the general conditions of Calliope Dock contract." Mr Stone said that his reason for moving in this matter was two-fold : firstly, in order that the Board might get this unpleasant matter one step further ahead ; and, secondly, to redeem a promise made to the electors during the canvassing done last week. No one had any idea, except those who weic so employed, as to the amount of talk and scandal going on about this so-called "unseemly dispute" between the Harbour Board and the dock contractor. One of the Auckland journals had lent a handle to this scandal, and he felt that he must express his astonish men t that a newspaper of such impoitanee had thought fit to print an article so scandalous as that which appeared about a fortnight ago. That article was already having its eltect all thiough the colonies, and veiy likely they would hear of it from England and America shortly. The Evkninu Star, which was professedly for ' : the wrong that needs resistance, ' had, with commendable honesty and wisdom, refrained from expressing an opinion while the matter was t,ub judice. It appeared to him to be a case between Mr Lanigan and the morning paper of "preserve me of my iiiendb," and he did not think that the " Herald " had done Mr Lanigan's case any good. Personally he was a fiiend of Mr Lanigan's, and he thought that everybody else on the Board was his friend, but at the same time he would go in for settling his claim upon a fair basis. Those of the oublic who were making* such a noise about the mattei would be amongst the first to complain if the Boaid paid a-vay the money of the Board by giving to Mr Lanigan moie than was> duo to him. The public did not know that in Mr Lanigan'b account there weie items amounting to something like £2,200 in one line, charges made for the Board having taken his men from the Dock and put them on defence works at the Noith Head, whereas the Board did nothing of the kind. The tacts were that the Government a&ked the Board what men were available at the Dock, and the Minister of Public Works was told to apply to the contractor direct, the Board promising that if any concession was made by Mr Lanigan to the Government, the Board would extend Mr Lanigan's time at the end ol the contract, before the penalty clause would take ettect. Mr Lanigan had put i' 2,200 on his bill lor this alone. He would probably tell the aibitrator that the Chairman and Secretary told him that the Board would pay him the difference in expenditure that would be incurred by his having certain work done in the winter, instead of the summer, because of these men having 1 been taken away ; but this would, on the other hand, be denied. He questioned whether Mr Ware would accept the position ot arbitrator on the whole of Mr Lanigan's account, but the public had been asking how much the Board owed Mr Lanigan. He (Mr Stone) did not know himself, and it waa to obtain that information that he now moved. The arbitrator had been appointed and had been accepted by the contractor, who in July last sent a letter to the Board, asking that the matters in dispute between himself and the Engineer (Mr Errington) should be referred to Mr Wcire. The public did not know this, and they did not know that Mr Lanigan's account of ClB.OOO was almost entiiely for extias ; they did not know that the Board would not pay that account because it was not right. The arbitrator appointed by the Board had been referred to by both the contractor and Engineer dozens of times during the contract, up till the time that the work was finished, and then the Engineer and contractor, failing to agree, once more go to Mr Ware to settle their disputes. All ot a sudden negotiations were broken on", and the Board was left without any award, and, as a matter of fact, it Mr Lanigan's account wore now submitted to the arbitrator, it might be found that the award would be pretty near the sum claimed by Mr Lanigan, and that all this unseemly dispute was for nothing. Mr Lanigan might accept the award and be satisfied. He could not understand why so much had been eaid about Mr Ware being unfair, or likely to be unfair. A lot had been made of a clause in the agreement stating that " Mi* Ware, or such other person as may be appointed arbitrator," but that was done to provide for any emergency aiibing 1 by the death or resignation of Mr Waie. If this motion were carried and the Board got an award from their arbitrator as to tho right amount, it should be paid ; and then, if this did not agree with Mr Lanigan's idea of things, and he refused to accept the award, it would be for the Board to say " There is your money." Mr Lanigan could then ask for another arbitration or take the matter to Court, but whatever way things went they would be a stage further on. Mr M, Niccol said that in view of inquiry being made as to the legal position ot the Board, he had obtained an opinion from the Board's solicitors. They stated that the course which the Board should pursue was to formally write to Mr Ware, informing him that Mr Lanigan, having forwarded his account and made certain claims against the Board, the Board requires him to arbitrate on these claims, t>ee that Messrs Lanigan and Ware have proper notice, and prove, or disprove, whether the items not accepted are correct. Mr Russell (solicitor) had also informed him that the Board had full power to refer the whole question to Mr Ware without a submission. Mr A. IT. Nathan seconded the resolution. Mr C. E. Button supported the motion. He made a point of the fact that Mr Ware had supervised the dock work while in progress, and that no other arbitrator that could be appointed was in a position to decide disputes about work now covered up by cement and masonry. Mr Waddef, tho then Chairman of the Board, was dead, and Mr Swainson, Clerk of Works, was in some foreign country. Mr Dignan said he did not wish to oppose the motion, but he wished to know if it were true that Mr Lanigan withdrew from the arbitration after the letter that Mr Stone referred to He believed there was a letter from Mr Lanigan complaining that he could not ffefc the Engineer to go on further with the work. Mr Niccol said he did not know that the Board had any notice of fcha*"- withdrawal. Mr J. M. Brigham (Secretary) said that Mr Ware appointed a time when the arbitration should be gone into. Mossrs Ware, Lanigan, and Errington

sab for ten days, and fche matter after that becamo a dead letter. The next heard of it by the Board was through a letter from Mr Lanigan, in which he objected to Mr Ware as arbitrator. Captain Anderson : If Mr Laniyan refuses to bring forward .the proofs necessary to substantiate his claim, as he threatens, how much further ahead will w6 be ? Mr Niccol : If he will not submit any proofs Aye will have to get the matter settled upon such information as the arbitrator has. I presume Mr Lanigan would refuse to abide by that and appeal to the Supreme Court, but I think it Avould be difficult for him to upset the award. Mr Niccol went on to say that he thought the Board were to blame in nob having referred the account to a committee of the Board betore. They had been content with the knowledge that it was a very wild and extravagant claim, and said at once : " Get Mr Ware to certify how much we have to pay." Mr Niccol also read letters from Mr Lanigan, in which he complained of the Engineer having refused to certify to a single item, and asked that the arbitrator should be called in. Mr Crowther pointed out items in the claim — extra brickwork, £69 ; puddleclay, £100 ; extra cement, £82 — and asked how could any newly-appointed arbitrator be expected to know anything about these items? Mr P. Dignan stated that information could be obtained from records left by the Clerk of Works. Mr Niccol : We have Mr Swainson's repot t as to what, in his opinion, were extra works. Mr G. Winstone thought that Mr Lanigan should submit his account to Mr Ware to see how far the latter would endorse it, that Mr Lanigan should be paid on the undisputed items, and disputed items settled some other way. Mr D. Ooldie said that many people imagined that Ml- Lanigan had not been paid his contract money, but this was not so. The whole of the contract money had been paid except £1,400, against which there was a claim of £2,000 for dredging. He thought that no persons outside of Messrs Ware and Ertington were able to deal with the matter. Tho motion was eventually put and carried unanimously.