DUNEDIN.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 324, 24 January 1874, Page 2

DUNEDIN.

(From our own Correspondent.) The passengers by the Gothenburgh. ioJP Melbourne, which left on the 14th inst., have some cause to regret having taken their passage- bj that steamer, as owing to mishaps •which befell the machinery of the boat, they have all been brought back to Dunedin after spending a week oit" tlac Otago coast. On the afternoon of the day that the Gothenburg left Port Chalmers, the air-purap rod of one of the engines broke, and at 9 j>.m. thenext day, when about 150 miles to the west of the Solanders, the engines suddenly, stopped with a crash, and it was found that the 6haft had broken. This or course rendere'l it impossible for her to continue on her. voyage, and she was at one& put under canvass, and flooded for Porfc Chalmers. She made good progress - until Sunday, when a heavy gale drove her away to tlie westward again. The wind, hotsever, changed, and enabled her to. reach the Heads on Moalay night, although she could not safely enter. She hove-to, and signalled \rith blue lights and. rockets, which not being observed, she drifted away to the northward during the night, but w,as luckily pick© I up by the Tararua on the following morning, and towed into. port. The case of Ross (architect) v. Eeith and others, representing the Deacons' Court of Knox Church, waa concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday. The storm which, culminated in the action of yestei'day haa been; brewing for a long time, aud the" matter has been freely canvassed by the friends of the intei'ested partiea since the time of Mr. Ross'& Buapension aa architect to the Church Committee. The facts of the case, shortly stated, ar© these : Mr. Davkt Ross's plans and specifications for the new Knox Cimrch. ware, abour eighteen months since, scleeteJ. from a number of others as being those meet suitable, and Mr. R033 in due course received intimation th.ifc he had been chosen as the architect fox- the building. A tender for its erection was shortly afterwards accepted, and preparations at once made for commencing building operations without delay. Matters had gone ' thus far when a difference arosebetween Mr. Ross and the Deacons'" Court as to the appointment of an inspector of -works, the architect having nominated a person in his, employ in whom the members of tha Deacons' Court had no confidence, and whose habits were such as to warrant them in supposing that he was not a fit and proper person to have the supervision of a work involving: an expenditure of between £6000 and £7000. Mr, Ross claimed the right to appoint the inspector, and the Deacons' Court as firmly refused to sanction the appointment of *a person ia whom, they had no. confidence. Matters haying- arrived at thia stage, and Mr. Ross declining to recede from the position h& had taken up. the Deacons' Court decided on dispensing with the services of the architect. Another- circumstance also operated upon their minds -when discussing the question, viz., that Mr k Ross had by purchase become the. owner of a quarry, the stone from, whichis* had strongly recommended should be usea in. ' the erection of the church. The fact 'of- Yr 4 Ross recommending the stone,.ftom- this quarry was looked upon with suspicion by the Building Committee, and they, previous to his dismissal from office as their irehitect, resolved upon using stone from another quarry, and instructed Mj\ Ross to enqnlre of the tenderers what difference tie change of stone would make in the amo-tnt of ther tenders. Mr. Rops, according.to.tie evidence of the convenor of the Building Jommittee, carried out these instructions is such a way as to give the tenderers the option of re-opening their tenders, and the rtsult waa that Roach and. Martin, the conifActors whose tender had been accepted, adcle>-"£110 to the. amount of their tender* Afw the dismissal of Mr. Ross, at which tin? * portion of the work in connection witl the building had been executed the-Deacors' Court paid the contractors for the- -work- v;hich had been done, and gave them a certain <*üm in consideration of their agreeing to. rtipcel their- tender. The affair then r?m^ned in abeyance, except that Mr. Ross chimed his commission of 5 per cent, on the «vhole coat of the church, ■which, however, the I Deacons' Court declined to pay; s.n.l after tho lapse of a considerable intes-val of time, Mr. Ross brought the present a^tipn in the j Supreme Court for. the recovery to. the same. The jury had very considerable difficulty ia arriving afc a verdict, and it was only afterthey had been locked up for six hours that five-ientha of them agreed; Theverdict waa substantially for the defendants, the jury having only awarded Mr. Ross 405., instead of the. £200- odd which he. claimed as beingstill due to him. In consequence of the large number- of isanes which the. jury had.' to anawer> however, the verdict seemed to- be surrounded with such a halo of mist — the answer to the most material of the issues being in- favor of the- defendants, while the verdict, aJthpughfor. but a small amount, was ia favou of the, plaintiff — I understand there -will probably be some argument in. Chambers before his Honor the Judge as to. whether- the verdict can properly be received in its present form. While on Court matters, tlie arrest of thecaptain of the Surat on a criminal charge^ — that of not taking Bteps to. ensure the safety of hia passengers when their lives were placed' in jeopardy — naturally, comes to one's imnd. He- was on Tuesday arrested by one of the detectives for allowing the steamer War.ganui to pass without ' signalling her when there seemed imminent danger to many valuable lives, and is to be brought up at (he Resident Magistrate's Court on Saturday to answer the charge..