KORU METALLING.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1916, Page 9

KORU METALLING.

S.'.-VTt,vi? AND CONTRACTOR. !Iv>'>.-» mel.lHng contracts in Koru, pv..-.- >jih IV nas already'been sonic ■ „. ;>» t \v. f an ,„>. ~» .- uru (:vu . J H. IciVnSfcAlB^SUC-. <»'■_ .'.' Uv.Y" ■"•■<*/• dith and Robert J-... ... ,; ntv .., >ir,r». tors, Oalrurn l.Mr. ,1". .:, ■••»,. /V ! 12s. The item;, of t;„. ...niim ..." - u[ , i sisted' of: Crazing for iHrinclcs, from November S, 1914, till April £l2; payment for right, to dump 288 yards of stone at 3d, £3 12s; repairing fence, £1; removing five chains of corduroy and re-filling cutting, £5; and cost oJ clearing up dumping ground, Mr. Johnstone, in 'outlining the ease, said that plaintiff was the owner of a section situate between the Plymouth Road and the Kiri river. Defendants took a contract in 1a1.4 for metalling a portion of 'Plymouth Bond, and in 1915 tool; another contract for metalling a further portion. As to the grazing", defendants arranged, in November, 1014, to graze their bullocks pn the property of Mr. A. Looney, which was on the Other side of the Kiri river. By crossing the property of plaintiff the defendants were saved a journey of Six or seven miles by road. On two nights plaintiff noticed defendant's bullocks being driven across the paddock, shearing down the grass as they went. On the second evening witness saw G.ray and asked him to pay £ 1 per week for the privilege of driving the bullocks across, but ultimately it was arranged that the contractors should pay 10s per week for the privilege, but no payment had yet been made. The claim for £3 12s for the right to dump 288 yards referred to the second contract. Defendants had paid £lO for this right in respect of the first contract, and it was -considered that 3d per yard was reasonable. In order to get in- and out the contractors- had broken the fence, and the necessary' repairs would cost £l. Ih ot;de: to get across a soft place in the paddock the contractors had laid down six chains of corduroy and made a cutting. It would cost £o to remove this. The last claim was for £lO, the cost of clearing up ground and removing the stone thereon. Evidence was given by plaintiff in support of counsel's statements. In the course of a lengthy crossexamination, plaintiff denied that he said to one of the contractors, "Leave the track alone and I will deal with the county." Nor did lie ask Mr. Gray to state that he had taken all the nietal off plaintiff's property. Mr. F. P. Corkill, commission agent, of New Plymouth, who was Mr. Kaill's arbitrator, deposed that the question of the dumping ground and also of the I corduroy, to. which their attention was i drawn by Mr. Eaill, had not been considered by the arbitrators, who had to take into account the amount of compensation to be paid by the County Council for right of way and royalty on stone. In cross-examination, witness stated that the arbitration award was 'based on 1253 yards, the royalty of which (3d a yard) was divided between Raiil and Looney. Raill was allowed 3d on 1253 yards for damages in crossing his property, and also £4 for special damages in making cuttings, a total of £23 2s 100. F. W. Jones also gave, evidence. Mr. J. E. Wilson said that defendant's case would be a denial that the bullocks had grazed on plaintiff's property, or that there had been any contract to pay a sum for the right to drive across to Looney's. Evidence would be given to show that one of the defendants had endeavored to arrange with Mr. Raill for grazing, but could not do so. Mr. Raill agreed to allow them to drive the bullocks across his land, but there was no mention of any payment. Eegarding the claim for dumping 288 yards of stone, they considered that the right to do this was vested in the agreement under the first contract. It would be admitted that 200 yards of stone was dumped more than was required for the first contract, but the stone was got out under the impression that it would be necessary for the first contract. Defendants at the time did not have any other contract. Under contemplation. Had they not obtained the second contract it would have been incumbent on them to have taken the boulders off the dump site. Forty yards had been dumped on the. site and put through the crusher in one day. He argued that the claim for fencing and the corduroy track was covered by the award in the case with the Taranaki County Council, though it would be shown that defendants of their own free will had left the fence in better order than they found it. The crusher had since been through' the fence. Evidence would also show that plaintiff had asked Raill to leave the corduroy, as he would deal with the county. Eegarding the claim of £lO for clearing up the dumping ground, it would be contended that the contract made for the use of this was made in contemplation of the fact that the dumping of a quantity of stone implied that the ground would necessarily be to a certain extent destroyed. Defendants had entered the ground as servants of the County Council under the Public Works Act, and it was against the county that plaintiff should have had his remedy for the fence and the corduroy. R. -C. Gray gave evidence in support. He considered that they would not get half a yard of metal on the dumper site, only splinters. He noticed now that stone and rubbish, that he had < placed on the road, was back inside of the fence. He denied that bullocks were driven across Raill's from November 20 to December 30. Plaintiff wished witness to sign a certificate stating that the whole of the nietal had been carted from in front of his property. 1 In cross-examination he admitted that it was a substantial advantage to drive the bullocks across Mr. Raill's property. Mr. Raill agreed to this, but he did not ask for payment. J. Brown, chairman of the County ! Council, gave evidence that the 3d per yard compensation was intended to cover all surface damage. In this lie would include the corduroy. It did not cover the dumping ground. There was a clause in all contracts that fences should be put in order. W. 11. Morris, E. O. Meredith, and Charles Herlihy, also gave evidence for the defence. This concluded the evidence, and it j was arranged that counsel's addresses ivoul.l be taken on a date to be fixed. i