A CONTRACT DISPUTE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10035, 8 July 1910, Page 6

A CONTRACT DISPUTE.

At the Masterton S. M. Court, yes- j tsrday, before Mr G. \j. Graham. I S.M , J. Boreham and others claimed from Adam Armstrong and others the sum of £35 3s fid, defendants couu* ter-claiming for £4O. The claim set out that on April sth, 1909, plaintiffs entered into an agreement with defendants for the erection of a telephone line between Masterton and Fernyhurst, at the raie of 4s per pole and 20s per mile of single wire, all material to be supplied by defendants and to be delivered by them within one quarter of a mile from the place required fcr erection; that in pursuance of the contract plaintiffs proceeded with the erection of the telephone line and other work in connection with it which wps authorised by defendants from time to time and completed it on October 6th, 1909. Plaintiffs have received th 3 total sum of £72 in part payment of the contract and claim a further sum of £35 3s 6d, being balance ot the total cost alleged to be due, namely, £lO7 3s 6d. . A counter claim was entered, in which defendants admitted that a contract had been let for the erection of a telephone wire between Masterton and Fernyhurst, but a - leged that the conditions had not been carried out. The wire, according to the specifications, was to be No. 10 gauge, the poles jarrah 6x4, and about 18 and 20ft in height, to be firmly sunk 4ft in the ground about six chains apart, according to the formation of the land, all necessary poles to be firmly anchored by means of properly fixed blocks of wood. The sag of the was not to be more than 16ft from the ground at all crossings, and not less than 12ft from the ground at all ether places, the line to consis of four wires to be placed on the arms in accordance with the guages supplied and to be tightly and properly strained and spliced. The work was to fce carried out with reasonable despatch and to the satis • faction of whoever was appointed to superintend it, while the defendants agreed tofall any standing bush likely to interfere with the safety of the line. The plaintiffs, it was allegid, had neglected and refused to complete the contract, and the defendants, therefore, made a counterclaim to recover £4O by way of damages. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared ior plaintiffs, and Mr P. L. Hollings for defendants. Mr Hollings asked that the name of Mr Adam Armstrong be struck out, as that gentleman was now dsceaied. Bernard Lepinski gave evidence similar to the statement of claim, stating that he and his partners had carried out the work according to the specifications, and bad done it well. J. Boreham and A. Lepinski also gave evidence concluding the case for the plaintiffs. His Worship, after hearir.g evidence for the defence, stated he wa3 inclined to rely on the evidence given by the expert, who had no hesitation, in stating that he did not consider the lines bad been erected according to the contract. It seemed to him that the men for want of the necessary experience had taken the contract lower than would pay them

Judgment wouldjbe given for defendants with costs. Mr Hollings stared|]that asTjudgmant had been in his clients" favour he would not press the counter claim.