A BUSHFELLING CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4844, 6 October 1894, Page 2

A BUSHFELLING CASE.

Brannigan v, Burling. This case was continued in the MasIcrton S.M'. Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.. A number of witnesses were called by the plaintiff to prove that the work was well done, and that it was owing to the non-supply of meat by tli3 defendant that the contract was not completed according to the original specifications, For the defence Mr Beard said it would be for the Court to say if the work had been satisfactorily performed according to the specifications, and if so, what amount was due lotlicphiintiif. If the Court found it had not been property performed, in tho spirt of the specifications it would be for his Worship to say what amount should be deducted from the contract to cuablo the defendant to complete the work. He (Mr Beard) would show that the work had not been properly performed; that trees had been left standing in large numbers under the size stated in the specifications. His client had sustained heavy loss through the way in which the work had been done, The Inspector had frequently made complaint as the work went on, and the contractor had promised to make good the defects. 11 was when Brannigan found that no money was coming to him at the expiry of the contract, that ho had thrown it up. He would show that the work had been summed, aud that the ground was now in a worse state that if it had not been touched.' There could he no connection with the bush contract and the arrange- < ment to supply meat by the defendaut, i 11. P. Grcvillc, surveyor gave evidence , that he had measured certain portions of the bush. He did not inspect the block to be able to express an opinion of the work done. Henry Burling, defendent. gave evidence that at thcend of December andsubsequently, he went over flic"'ground since it was felled and found it to be the most wretchedly felled piece of bush he had over seen. Vines and supplejacks had not been cut aud tho'specifications generally not carried out. Had paid £133 13s (Id to have three patchesfcllcd. The bush on the remaining patches could not bo felled for less than 30s per acre. Terminated the supply of meat to Brannigan owing to his irregularity in coming for quantities ordered. At this stage the Court adjourned until 7.30 p.m., and on resuming the cross-exanihialiou of the defendant was continued by Mr Powuall. Joseph McLuggago, employed by defendant, gave evidence that in his opinion the work had not been property done. Considered he was qualified to say how bush should be felled. W. J. Burling also gavo evidence in defendant's favour, after which the Court adjourned' until this (Saturday) morning. ' Upon the Court resuming at 10 a.m. on Saturday, a legal discussion ensued between counsel, after windi His Worship, in 'summing iip the facts of tlic case, said tluuVho thought it was immaterial that'the non-supply of meat was d sufficient reason for the contractor to abandon his contract. If aiiy' breach was thereby pnactcd,itshouldbebrougltt forward in a separate action. Tho amount of bush left standing, according to the surveyor's (Mr Groville) evidence was 91 acres, thus leaving 329 acres, which I Jii his opjniun, and according to the ■utditof the'evidence was well ioae, lit i

and thoreforo' ho would giro judgment for the' plaintiff for £7O 12s 6d, with costs amounting to £ls lfs Gd.