R.M. COURT, RAGLAN.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 2875, 16 December 1890, Page 2

R.M. COURT, RAGLAN.

(TnCHSPAT. —(Before Capt. J -cksnn, R.M.) Vkhcoe v. Ra'u.a.v Coii'S'rr Council — Claim, £18 10s for extras on contract A <>. 12 (building a bridge over the Wainui creek), being for driving piles £15, shifting stones £2, detention by natives £1 10s. Mr T. G. Sandes, county engineer, appeared as agent for the Council. —lb® pl'untiff pioduced the contract agreement and specifications, and Mr Sandes raised an objection to tho case proceeding as under Clause 18 of the '• Conditions of Contract the plaintiff was precluded from taking legal proceedings against the Council. — The R.M. reserved this point and elected to hear the evidence.—Mr R. Loane stated that ho was a partner of the plaintiff and that they proceeded to erect the bridge, the stone abutments of which were wa-hed away by a flood during constiuction. That then tna chairman ordered him to erect a pile bridge, iie considered this a new contract and valued it at £35, of which £20 tiarl been made.—ln cross-examination by Mr Sandes he admitted having received a letter from him stating that ha (Mr Sandes) considered that \ orcoe was bound to erect a bridge and that he considered they were responsible for the damage done. He would swear that Mr Mitchell, county chairman, told him to build a pile bridge and that lie (Mitchell) would see hiin paid for it. £35 to £3<> was a fair price for building the pile bridge.—S. Vercoe, the plaintiff, corroborated Loane's evidence and valued the bridge at from £35 to £40. — Mr Sewell, civil engineer, pave evidence for the plaintiff. He valued the bridge at £20 or a little more. It might be worth £21. He had seen bridges as good erected for 25s and 30s per foot. The removal of tho stone, for which plaintiff claimed £2, was worth from 25s to 30s.— Mr Sandes, for the defenco stated that he would prove that no contract had been made by tho county chairman with Vercoe to erect a bridge of any sort. He would also prove that the bridge was not worth £35 as sworn by plaintiffs, hut was worth about what Mr Sewell, plaintiffs' and defendants' witness s iid, that was£2o or so.— Mr T. Mitche'.l, J.P. and late chairman of the Council, swore that he had never made any contract with Vercoe to put up a pile bridge; that Loane had told hiin that Mr Sandes had authorised them to do so, and lie said that tho matter was entirely in Mr Sandes' bands, J.f Mr Sandes had ordered the bridge to be put up he would see that ] it was paid for. He was positively certain that he had never ordered the bridge to be put up. He had 110 authority to do so. The bridge was worth from £18 to £20, He would build it for £20. Ho had had large experience in building bridges in the district. He said he had authorised the removal of the stone at the first bri'lge, which had been washed away owing to the ■site being chosen off the proper road ami on private property. Plaintiff (through Mr Loane) cross-examined this witness severely, but failed to shake 1113 evidence.— Mr T. G. Sandes, (County Engineer) said In; had made plans, etc., for u bridge, and the Council let tile contract to Vercoe. The abutments ,vere to be of stone. On August 28th, he inspected tho works and granted a progress payment of £15 on account of work done and material on the ground. He did not pass the stone abutments as completed. Such a thing would not be heard of on the part of any engineer as to pass a portion of an uncompleted work of the kind. Tiio contractor bad to build a bridge and maintain it for threo months. It was washed away before tho time was up, therefore the contractor was liable. Ho heard that the abutments were destroyed and wrote to the chairman and contractor to the eti'cct that the contractor must put a bridge as lie had contracted to do so. Ho stated in both letters that the contractor was liable. The contractor really claimed the £35 for the pile bridge, and the £15 for work done on the stono abutments which he maintained was a tinal payment on that work. This Mr Sandes denied entirely. The value of the pile bridge was not move than £22. He had had many bridges built for iess as good as that one. Air Loane cross-examined this witness r»tlier violently tinaUy saying to tho Court: "it i* nothing but spite on Mr Sandes' part that has prevented us being paid—nothing but mean spite." The R.M. immediately stopped tho plaintiff, and administered a scveee rebuke for making such accusations against a mail in Mr Sandes' positions. In giving judgment the Court said it was a most extraordinary case, and evidently there had been considerable lying. He thought it most extraordinary that a contractor would go ami put up a bridge without having a scrap of writing or anlhoritv for his ac'.ion. It ha.l b.:«n proved 'by plaintiff's own witness, Mr Savell that the bridge was only worth £20 and that had been paid. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to £15 fo>' oclra work nor was lie entitled to anything for Maori interference. He was entitled to oOs for moving stone, and judgment would go for that amount without costs. JinsiiiiUST St'MMON.s—Rendall and Henry v. Mold. An order was made that the defendant pay £2 on January Ist and one pound per month until the amount is paid, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. Wibkmi" Honaki v. Ai.uxasdkii R. McJasskt. —This was an action brought by plaintiff against defendant for the value of a pig which was worried by dogs of defendant. Tho evidence of two native lads went to siiow that they found defendant's dogs worrying a pig, the property of the plaintiff. 'The defendant had caught the pig. When they got up, he was on the pig holding it down. When ho (defendant) saw them he cut its ears off. Ho had the ear and they took it from him. The pig was alive but dying, it was dead now they thought. They then caught one of the dogs belonging to defendant and brought it away with them. I'hev got tho ear of tho pig from defendant. The p:g was branded and the ear produced in court bore th°ir brain. There were no other natives with dogs there. I t was a middling sized pig, and if fat would have fetched more than £1, Tlie first witness stated that the defendant cut off the ear with a pocket knife, but the latter witness maintained it was cut off with a butcher's knife like the one produoed in court. They both affirmed that they left the pig where the dogs had been on it. The latter witness sworo he did not show tho pig attheKopua, to Mr Sewell there. They left it at the place where the dogs worried it. Alexander lv. Mc.launet, defendant stated the native lads came out to his place on November 2nd., they were after cows, he told them where the cows were. He went with them and saw their cows iu the distance. They then left him. Tho younger witness then came as,king lor their dogs. Shortly after the last witness and his brother picked him up. " nri s " i(1 tlis dofr Wils " pig. He went and saw the dog tied up, also tho pig tied up too, Tho right ear was bitten off by sr.ine dog, the other ear was hanging just oil. He took out his pocket knife and cut it off, and put it down, as lie thought it would heal up the sooner if off. No harm beyond the injury to the ears was done to|the pig. Hedon't know who tied his dog up. Ho saw the first witness lifting the pig on his horse, and ho would yet prove that tho natives had perjured themselves. He valued the wild pig at Is. It was a poor miserable bush pig. He offered to pay the shilling. His road to the township is through their land. He said he would give a good pig for it.—Mr Sewell gave evidence supporting the testimony of the defendant, in reference to the disposal of the pig. As he haw the pig when they brought it into the settlement at Kopua, they, the natives, said it was the pig McJannets dogs had worried. He said McJannet was to blame for not killing it at once. The pig was not worth more than ss. The R.M. hero stated he thought the natives could not be speaking the truth as both the defendant's and this witness (Sewell s) evi dence showed (.hat tho pig had not boen left ill the bush but had been conveyed into the settlement.--Mr Sowell stated ho saw the pig at the door of the whare and they told hun it was tho pig that the defendants dot: had worried.—John .)acksoli gave evidence as to tho value of pigs.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for without costs, the R.M. being very dissatisfied with tho evidence of the native witnesses.