SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1900, 4 June 1889, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Timaru—Friday, Mat 31,1889, ■ (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Dennistono, and a special jury, consisting of Messrs E, G. Stericker—fpman— E. Clissold, C. R. Shaw, R. Foster, S. Clissold, W. A, Rose, M. White, C. G. Yogeler, James Campbell, W. Ferrier, and W. J. Huggins). W. J. Silcock v. Geraldine County Council—Claim £754 12s sd, balance dua to plaintiff as contractor for the con* struefcion of the contracts Nos. 2 and 3 of the Orari-Rangitatn water-races. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Hay, for plaintiff; Mr George Harper, with him Mr White, for defendants. Mr Hay read to the jury the statements of claim and,of defence : In July 1887, the defendants by their engineers Messrs Meason and Marchant, called for tenders for the construction of certain water races, contracts 2 and 3, Rangitata district. The specifications and conditions, prepared by the engineers, provided that plans appended showed the number and the approximate positions of the races to be constructed; that the engineers should accompany the contrao* tor and mark out on the ground work to be executed, and that ■ several details of the work to be supplied by the engineers must be adhered to. The drawings were stated to be not a full description of the works , the works were to be more fully set forth in the “ lists ” and defined on the ground. At the conclusion of the works the races were to be measured and paid for according to a schedule of prices for different sizss and classes of work, such schedule to be furnished bj the contractor. The engineers were to have power to alter the dimensions of the races, such alterations either way to bo taken into account in measuring up.

Plaintiff’s tender was accepted in August, 1887, at £Boll3s Id. Accompanying the tender was a schedule of prices, showing how the amount of tho tender was arrived at. The engineers never defined and marked out the race on the ground, and never supplied the detailed lists of work referred to in the specifications. Plaintiff completed the works according to the contract. The execution of thorn involved a very much larger amount of work than was stated in the specifications, and some of it consisted of work not described la the specifications. The engieeers gave a certificate that the work was completed. The real value of the work, as shown in the particulars of claim, was £1522 3s 4d (subject to some alterations). Plaintiff had received £741 Os sd, and claimed a further sura, first of £7Bl 2s Id, but this was reduced to £754 12s sd, and this was the sum now claimed. . \ The statement of defence, after tjjlg, usual denial of “material allegations/’ went on to state the conditions of contract as to payment. The plaintiff was tp rp»

ceive each calendar month, on the certificate of the engineers, 80 per cent, of the value of the work done, and 50 per cent, of the value of the material placed on the ground for use in permanent constructions. Un iho completion of tlm works the engineers were to give a certificate to that effect, which was to entitle the contractor to receive the balance of the contract moneys except 7 per cent., to bj retained for three months, during which the contractor was to maintain the race in good order. The engineers had never given a cirtificate that the works were comp-eted according to the contract. they had measured up the work done, and allowed payments to plaintiff accordingly, includv i»g payments for extra works directed by pern to be executed, and any other works of classes different from those named in the schedule of prices attached to the contract they had allowed for at a fair measure and value. They had allowed £557 5s lOd for contract No. 2; and £4lB 2s 6d for contract No. 3 ; and £34 for a certain extra branch race. Defendants claimed to deduct from the amount, otherwise due to plaintiff, a sum of £267 18a fid as the penalty fixed by the contract, of £6 per week, for exceeding the contract time, and other deductions. The contract provided that extensions of time should be allowed on reasonable grounds, and the engineers did allow an extension ef six weeks, but plaintiff did not complete the work till 22 weeks and 2 days after the time fixeda It was provided by the contract that if the engineers considered any work defective they could demand that the contractor make it good, or make it good themselves and deduct the cost from any moneys due to him. Under this clause of the contract certain defects in the work had been made good by defendants (plaintiff refusing to do it) at a cost of £25 in Contract No. 2, and of £2O in Contract *-No. 3. In consequence of plaintiff’s refusal the defendant! had been put to other expenses, estimated at £ls. The defendants asked for iudsment for these sums, £6O. ! Plaintiff put in a defence to tae counter claim, denying that the work was not finished according to specification ; denying that the engineers over gave him notice that any parts of the works was defective and requiring him to amend them j and denying that the amendment cost £45, and that the defendants otherwise through that incurred an expense of £ls. The evidence of the plaintiff was then commenced, but he bad not concluded when the Court rose for the day. Saturday, June 1. On Saturday the case was continued. Plaintiff concluded bis evidence. C. E. Fooks and Alfred Fooks, engineers, deposed as to measurements they had made of the races. W. Shiers, overseer to the Geraldine Road Board, gave evidence as to practice in measuring up, etc. James Quigley, contractor, Ashburton; Joseph Harris, laborer (plaintiff’s foreman); Silas Webb, laborer; J. Capstick, laborer; W. Chute, carpenter, and W. Legerwood also gave evidence. This concluded the plaintiff's caeo, and Mr Harper than explained to the jury the chief points of the defence, and the Court adjourned until Monday morning.