R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4349, 20 February 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

EKKTAHUNA--SATURDAY,

(Before Folonel Roberts, 11.M.)

Grey, tireenwootl and Burke v, Sedcole. Claim £9B 10s, balance duo on bush contract. Mr Pownall for plaintiffs, Mr Smith for defendant. Grey deposed that he Lad received £lO aa progress payment, He had carried on tbo contract till 12th December, when tbo men left on account of mosquitoes, He had a conversation with Hughes, who said he was sorry that they had received so much money, He thought they wero receiving 15 per cent, instead of 50 per cent, as por contract, He sent notice to the defendant that wo could not get men, Hughes said we ought to leave the contract till next year. Ho was acting on Sedcolc's behalf, Sedcolo agreed to that. We had finished at that time about 90 acres and went back in March, 1892. Saw Sedcole and asked him when we were to start work. Ho said ho would not have it done, and refused to squnro up with us.—By Mr Smith: After tbo last progress payment we worked one week, Wo had to fall everything at £i per aero, At this stago the Court adjourned till Saturday. On resuming, Burke, one of the plaintiffs, called, stated that he was one of thoso who signed the contract. Ho was absent a week and after commencing work he found the line cut. lie did not know who cut it. They started in September and cut about 100 acres. On the oth December they received seventy pounds in two payments. Got one cheque from Mr Sedcolo and ono from Mm Sedcolo. Mr Hughes went over the work beforo wo were paid, On one occasion 1 went over the work with Mr Huchoß, he made no complaint to us. Mr Hughes told Sedcole that it was a real good job. This is the first time I have beon told that we have not done the work according to contract. It was agreed that we should leave tho work till next year, and get paid up for the lot, Mr Sedcole agreeing to this arrangement, I went to Mr Sedcolo in the autumn of 1892 to seo when we should goon, as we wero prepared to start work, He said ho was not going to let m finish it, and refused to pay up the balunco on the job, I saw him again in the winter, and ho still rofused. No complaints had been made about the work, Felling tho fonce line was a special contract. I mado tho agreement with Sedcolo to fell tho fence lino at Si per novo. By Mr Smith: The contract prico for the bush was &1 lis Gd per acre, l Signed the contract at Mr Sedcolo's house, The specifications bad Bines been altered, William Greenwood said ho had signed an agreoment for £1 lis Od per acre. He was tho first to sign tho contract, Tho figures had been scratched out sinco he signed tho contract. Mr Sedcole signed the contract with him. Mr Hughes was not the man to pass progress payment unless tho work was done, Felled about ninety acres, loaving thirty acres, tho lighiest part of tho bush, to foil. By Mr Smith: 1 arranged tho prico with Mr Sedcole, at Pahiatua. Edward Mover: I met Mr Sedcolo about last July, and had a conversation with him, He explained the reason ho did not pay the men was that they had not finished the contract on account of their not being able to get men. That if they would finish the contract later on ho would pay tbem by Mr Smith. During this conversation Mr Brown was with mo. I have a remembrancs that Mr Sedcolo said they bad fallen some lines for thorn. The statomont for tho defonco was that the price of contract was to be £llos Gd per acre, and that there was no reason for tho men to leave the work, that the three acres offence lino claimed by plaintiff was part of original contract, and that nothing was done on contract, tho work not boing done according to specifications. Edward (Joatcs, son-in-law of of defendant, had beon over the bush, buthadnot seen specifications, He caw . 80 or 40 treos standing from 4ft to , 3ft Gin, all rimu, he saw the trees after tho burn. F, Sedcolo, son of defendant,"stated that he went over tho bush several times, ho had not counted tho trees left tinder 4ft, By Mr Pownall: The btieh fallen by plaintiffs has been burnt and was now under grass. The defondant, Henry Sedcole snid, Mr Hughes and myself, saw tho plaintiffs, who said that the men had left tho contract on account of the moßfjuitocß, tho men wanted to

leave the hush till tho next season, Mr Hughes agreeing on my behalf to pay thein for all work that was dono, he made no arrangement for them to return tho next year, tho alteration iof figures iu contract was made at time of signing. Mr Sedcolo was present when Greenwood signed. By Mr Pownall: Mr Hughes was my inspector and was to make no progress'payment till the work was completed. I saw Greenwood at Pahiatua, Ho said they were ready to fall remainder of bush at any time. I refused to let them do it. lam quite certain tlioy wanted to return tho next year. John Hughoa rometnbered interview «t the timo the men wore {leaving work. Valued the work done at about £llO, Tho bush was not fallen according to contract, on thefonce lino the trees were still standing, By Mr Pownall: I suggested that tliey sliould return the following year and 51r Sedcoie objected. After the lust progress payment they worked 12 days, I took no steps to get contract completed when tlioy left, Greenwood recalled, stated that he did not leave the job, ho was there on tho morning of the 18th, when l)is mates (old him that it was agreed to leavo the work till next year, Mrs Sedcolo wifo of dofendant, remembered tlio agreement being signed by Greenwood. Wasquite sure the prico was 80s Gd, the one was struck out befoio it was signed, Judgment was reserved,