Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


» The olvil iult In the Timaru Supreme Ooart, W. J. Sllorok v. Garaldlne Ooaoty Oounoll, olaim £754 12b sd, wsb concluded last evening, after a hearing ooonpylng foar fall days. The plaintiff and several of his workmen gave evidence as to the way the work was dona, and Messrs Fooks and Son as to the measurement of earth work, For the defenoe Messrs Moason and Marohant, Engineers to the Ooaaoll, and their O.'erk of Works, were examined. The priuoipal point in the case had reference to the qaantlty of' '' extra " work doae, and there was great dlsorepanoy between the results of measurements by the Eoglnoara to the Council and those employed by plaintiff. The former finally made the total value of work done £908, and the latter £1495. Messrs Fooks bud made a olerlo*l error, and the amount named was the amended statement. Messrs Mar* chant and Moason submitted three difcrtaa statements varying from £60 to £100, and these differences ware not explained Messrs Fooks spent eleven and a half days in measuring up, and, plaint ffasiamed that defendant*' engines ■ had not really measured at ill, bat they showed that they had spent even a longer time. The contract was loosely drawn and not strlotly adhered to by defendants' Eogloears. They had not even made the oontraotor sign It. There was some oinflict in the evidence between plaintiff and the Engineers as to simple matters of fact relating ta carrying ont the terms of the oootraot. Towards the oonolaslon of of th<3 o«8a it was agreei by ooausel to narrow down the Issae to be submitted to the Jury to the simple question how much plaintiff was entitled to receive over and abovo the amount already paid him, £741, leaving for argument In Chambers at Ohrlstohuroh the questions of law, as to whether plaintiff had a right to extension of time on acconot of yariouß alterations of the work from that specified ia tho contract, and the negloot of the Engineers to get the work ready, and whether the defendants had a right to enforce any penalties on the contraotor for exoesdiog the contract time. The contract time was exceeded by twooty-eiftnt weeks, while defendants were granted an extension of six weeks only, and offered to compromise for the ba'anoe of twenty two weeks at £3 10s per week, the amount of wages paid to the Olerk of Works Plaintiff, however, refused this compromise. The Jfury were given the tablos of Jesuits of ' measure* meats bj- oaoh aide, anjj after half an hoar's retirement this evening returned' vrith a verdict for plaintiff for £460 lOi 6 d on the point submitted to them. '

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

SILCOCK V. GERALDINE COUNTY COUNCIL, Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2143, 5 June 1889

Word Count

SILCOCK V. GERALDINE COUNTY COUNCIL Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2143, 5 June 1889