Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A PECULIAR CASE.

PRO BONO PUBLICO. ' P' \ s a Private Individual to Pay for ai ruWio Works? In the Masterton E.M. Court yes- ij rday afternoon, before Colonel <] oberts, B,M,,and MrA. W. Eenall, P., a case was heard in which j imnel Bartlett, contractor, claimed n did William H. Bestham, settler, the t ni of £l4 7s, the balance owing on a count, of certain work done in the t orough of Masterton, f Mr Pownall appeared for the plain- t IT and Mr Beard for the defendant. Mr Pownall briefly stated the oirimstances of the oase. It appeared iat Bartlett was constructing a cul:rt for the Borough Council, when le defendant asked him, probably in ie interests of the public, if he wonld iwer the culvert 2ft 6in. Bartlett . msented, and the work whb done, he whole work cost £2llos. The afendant paid the contractor £7 8s 1 a account of the work, and applied ■ ) the Borough Council for assistance ' ) pay the remainder. The Council ' ad contributed £5 towards the work. . 'be contractor had to be paid for 'hit he had done, and as Mr Beotham , ad given instructions for the work to ! e done it was now sought to recover . rom him the cost of the same, , Samuel' Bartlett, sworn, stated: I ! tu a contractor, residing in Masterton. ' was the successful tenderer for tlie onstruotion of a culvert across Queen Itreet for the Masterton Borough Jounoil. Whilst engaged at this work hadaconversation with Mr Beetham, he defendant. Mr Beetham brought i theodolite and said the culvert was lot deep enough. I was asked to leepen the culvert and creek and conented to do so. Mr Beetham put in iegs from Dixon Street up to the mlvert, I had to deepen the creek to nnble the culvert to be lowered, Nothing was said regarding the cost if the work, The, lowering of the lulvert Svas not in my contract with the Council, The work took ibout ten days to perform, On the irst two days there were throe nen working and afterwards five or lix. I was paying the men eight ibillings a day. I sent an account to Mr Beetham for £2lloa| and received £7 3s by cheque. I spoke to Mr Beetham several times about the work, and he said he would see the Council and get it paid, The defendant asked me for the iioms of the work, which I gave him. The amount claimed is a reasonable charge for the work. The amount of £l4 7s is still owing. By Mr Beard; The amount of £7 Ss I was paid was for deepening the creek up to the culvert. I had to deepea the culvert eighteen inches. I removed thirty yards of metal at 7s a yard, This accounts for £lolos. The balance of the £l4 78 is for putting in the pipeß. When Mr Beetham came tome he asked mo if I would undertake to deepen the creek and lower the culvert. The creek might be deepened without lowering the culvert. Mr Beetham said the culvert was not deep enough and ridiculed the idea of it being put in at the depth proposed. He said he wld seo the Borough Council about it, When I was lowering the culvert the work waß supervised by Mr Betty, the Borough Overseer, and other Borough officials, The work was passed by the Chairman of the Works Committee and the Overseer. In my specifications there were no levels. Betty showed me where to start in the first instance, Mr Beetham said his idea was to lower the culvert in Chapel-street so that the water in the fish ponda might also be lowered. Richard Brown, Town Clerk, produced the minute bookot the Borough Council to Bhow that Mr Beetham had waited upon the Council and asked lor assistance to pay for the lowering of the culvert' which had been done at his request. Mr Beethjim when before the Council had admitted that he made a mistake in asking that the work be done, but said lie did not like lo see the culvert put in as proposed. The Council never authorised Mr Bartlett to lower the culvert. The levels were fixed by the Overseer. The Council had contributed £5 toward: the work of lowering the bed of the culvert, which wasconsideredtobe the full value of the work done, No appli cation had been made for the £5, Bartlett did not claim any monej from the Council, If Bartlett hut applied for the £5 he would .have gol it. By Mr Beard: The Borougl Council did not as a rule allow private individuals to interfere with' iti works. Wh?n the Works Committei recommended the payment of £5 i recognised that it was necessary tt have the culvert lower. This was the case for the plaintifi For the defence Mr Beard main tained that the Borough Council wai responsible for the amount claimed inasmuch as the work had been dom under the supervision and by the in structions of the Borough Overseer Mr Beetham had merely made Bug gestions, and before the plaintiff car ried them out be should have consultei the Borough Council and got thei authority. William H, Beetham, sworn related the circumstances of the case When he saw Bartlett he guarantee! the payment for altering the level from Dixon-itreet to the culvert, ii order to give the contractor an oppor tunity of cjjnijultihg the pouncil as ti the lowering of the culvert, Ho eav that the culvert as proposed would b a bungle. He never authorise! Bartlett to lower the culyert. Whei he received Bartlett'fi account he wa but said'be yoiild pay fo what'l)o'had authorised, and gav him a cheque for i'if'§B for the deep ening of the creek,' He understooi Bartlett would'interview the Counci regarding t|ie lowering of the culvert IB considered tjje plajro flf Mr Bart Jett for t)ie pjfr (jgni? I rpqityj}! fine. " " Mr Pownall: You say yog gave jv instructions to Mr Bartlett regardici this work £ Mr Beetham \ None wbateyep. And you were therefore not res ponsible! I did not consider I was. Then if you were not responsible w|jy did yo« wa ' l "P on " le Counci and ask that the (pnpy bp paid ?: I wnrjted to pep t|i,e pi) paij because the work was .done well.' Why did. jotit apologise to tb Council for interfering ! v - If the Coi)ripil pould not Bee tha ray apology was satirp, j[ eympathis with"them j Then you hide bebijid satire ? Of course my apology was satire I knew the work was a bungle, nn< this plan will show It, I can't see your plan, It look like a dirty dish I You say you dii the deepening work in the interests c the public ? • I do. . _ • Did you not do it in the interest of the Acclimatization Society ? . The benefit derived by the Acclima

tization. Booiety is very indirect.. If ' tho culvert bad been put in as pro- i posed ■ the Society, or other parties ' would soon have an notion for damages againiifc the Council. . ! The witness further .stated that ho ; had explained to Mr Bartlett that his 1 liability ceased when the work of deepening the creek was done. William Betty, Overseer to tbe Borough, deposed that the culvert in question was put in by his instruct tions, and had been passed by himself and the Chairman of the Works Committee.. He considered £5 would pay for the extra work done in lowering the culvert. This was the case for the defendant. Tbe .Court reserved its decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18920408.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4084, 8 April 1892, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,262

A PECULIAR CASE. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4084, 8 April 1892, Page 2

A PECULIAR CASE. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4084, 8 April 1892, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert