SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3544, 24 June 1890, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

WELLINSION-iIC'NDAY. -I! | (Before His'ilfchlloi'f JttstW ', .: and jury.) .. • ■ BKYAST V.'IKETAHUNA ROXD BOARD, lii, this case Robert Bryant, a; con- : tractor in the Wairarapa, Bought to" rcWer:'£2so•"ir'the::valii i 6 of" a quantity of plant and material used in the construction of abridge ovor tho Makakahi .Eiver,. which • he-had. undertaken to build for tho Eko-' tahuna Road Board tor £4so,.and ; he also ; sough't to ire'eovet £505 .<as ! dimi ages for alleged negligence,, ( ..'~, -: - ,-■' j ! "The Boar'd'puf in of 4250 ; as "dama«e3 for alleged iiet;ligence:oii,the: part of. IbdiisonV, tractor,'^/:-: 1 -'*" 5 -' :•■■'''..'' '■'■'' Mr Morrison for the plaintiff, and Gully (instructed by Mr Board) : forthe,defence... ~ ■/ , , ' '..-. ; i ; ,;■; . ■ : Tj\e following special jury.- were sworn in—Messrs' VDiV■■T '> I'Stuart (foreman), James Jack,'JD Wrigglesworth, J Sloan, A E RowdenV\F H Pickering, A'Mcl);: Ferguson, is'aao i'liranierrT G Grata,

J V A Plinimer, and WE'Barraudj rs - fMr ! M6i : rison*i ! irl opening I 'the' tor the plaintiff;; Said that his client was'a continctoiyand the- action 'wad brought to.recover the value of a quantity of material and plant seized by the Eketahuna. fiond .Board, and iißed-iby theni,* and* also jo obtain damages for the negligence of thoit engineer : (Mr? King) 'ini : so 'directing .the construction of' a_Jbridgef .that_i.t collipßedr ! 'Aftor ! Becuring'the contract the'plaintiff went to. theenginebr .for dijections,;,and was,.supplied with working plans and details,' Amongst the plans was one of a scaffolding ou which, Vbe'bridge was to' be built. The bridge waßgoue, on with, and every. ; - .thing l.appearedi .satisfactory] Jo'Vjthf engineer until only about £2O mort

was to be. expended lipoD it; when jt suddenly collapsed, and fell to the bottom of the river. _ The contention p'tth'e 1 plaintiff was that the engineer representing the Board, having the control of the- works, prescribed a scaffolding which no engineer exercising ordinary carp would,have prescribed, and that the Board was responsible for the negligence of the engineer. After the bridge.:fell,.aundry. negotiations .took place between the plaintiff and givinghim notice','the Board seizedl'the "plant and materials, and converted them to their own usej.oontendingr.tliati under .the contract they were'entitled to do sb. A' case had come before the Besident Magistrate intheWftivarapo, the Board having proceeded against th'e'.siireties of the plaintiff, but it' appears that there was no contract which entitled them to seize the plant and materials. The question now resolved itself into one as to whether the engineer was negligent in prescribing this particular kind of scaffolding.'.Mi'jMorrison concluded his remarks by uientioning.that the bridge had collapsed before the stipulated strain was put upon it, and one man had his arm broken by falling

a distanco of 70ft. : The defence was that, through the neglect or mismahngemedt of Ihe contractor in carrying outliis instructions, the bridge'collapsed, ' All witnesses were ordered out of Oourt. ''.-.. : . ~, In crons-'examinotionj- plaintiff said that the engineer frequently expressed himself as being, satisfied with the work, in consequonce of-which several progress payments, were made, . Remembered receiving a' letter 6n ! the 2Gth of June last from the engineer to the effect that a particular portion of the work was not properly constructed, The defects complained of were then rectified, when an additional payment was n.ade. Considered.tbat the work

of the bridge was Bccurate)y|carried John HcLeod, carpenter, who was present at the building of the scaffolding, said that Ihe collapse was not due to any defects in die timber. v Qn one occasion, ho took the 'engineer under the scaffold, and naked bitu if. he thought it was strong enough, and the engineer answered in the affirmative. The scaffold was built strictly in accordance with the engineer's plans. ■ M..£.H'igginso'n, engineer, stated that he had examined i'tlio plans of the scaffold of the bridge in question, and in his opinion the. structure to hob strong enough', ■ Both ends of (he bridge were not capable of carrying More than double the breakage attain, whereas in witness' opinion they Bhould have been strong enough to carry at least six times that strain, Many of the bolts and fastenings he considered were tco small. Crosß-exaniined.by Mr Gully: The scaffolding might'have been' strong enough to bear one truss ■ instead of two, but fur this, Hbe bridge would have to be constructed according, Mr Gully, for the defence, contended that no evidence had 'been given to show that the Board was responsible, and further, that the phintiffhad failed to'prove that the epllapse of the bridge wsb. owing to any act of the Board, and under these contentions counsel asked for a nonsuit. ; • i ,: ; ■; .' .' Mr Morrison • thought a prima /acre case to go before the jury had been made out, . Oounsel had not conoluded their argument at 6 o'clock, -when the Court adjoui'ned 'to the following morning. ■;.■". .■