ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 128, 31 May 1901, Page 2

ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.

THE QUESTION OF THE £1000 FORFEIT.

EXTENSION OJ? TIME REFUSED

At the meeting- of the City Council last evening-, the Auckland Electric Tramways Company wiote giving notice that they would commence laying- down their Ii n<.- soau'time next month, mid that hs per eonti-aei, Hie Beach Ituad and College Hill circuits would he commenced first. This letter was referred to the Streets Committee, and the rnginwr. At a later stage the Legal Committee reported having considered an application from the Tramway Company for an extern-ion of the time for completion of the first part of their contract, and had asked the advice of the city solicitor on. the matter.

The questions put to ihe city solicitor (Mr Thos. Cotter) and his answers were submitted a« follows: —

1. Can the Council forfeit the f 1000 penalty should the company fail to substantially commence the work of constructing the tramway by June 1, l'JOl? —I am of opinion that your Council would be legally entitled to forfeit the £1000 penalty should the company fail to substantially commence the work of constructing- the tramway by June 1, 1901, provided that the company are not able to show that the delay was caused by reason or on account of a strike, combination of workmen, lockout, riot, civil commotion, war, act of Hod, or inevitable accident. But before being able to forfeit such amount your Council would require, in terms of the deeds, to giw the company CO days' notice in writing, authenticated by the common seal of the corporation, of the intention to avail themselves of the right of forfeiture, and stating- the specific breach in respect of which the power of forfeiture was intended to be exercised, and default should have been made by the promoters after the giving or leaving of such notice in repairing or remedying- the breach complained of for that space of time. 2. Can the Council cancel the contract in case of a small failure as in No. I?__] am of opinion that your Council can legally cancel the contract in case of such a failure as mentioned in the foregoing point, unless the company can show that the delay was caused by one. of the reasons mentioned in my above answer, but the jwwer of cancellation could not be exercised until a similar CO days' notice had been given, and the default to remedy the breach had extended for 60 days beyond the 60 days mentioned in the notice.

3. Will the £1000 \>e forfeitable if the, trams are not running by June 1, 1902?— The penalty of £1000 is provided by the deed for the failure to commence the work of construction and with business-like speed carry on Buch construction, but is not declared forfeitable for the reason mentioned in your third point, unless the fa<?t of trams not running by June 1, 1902, can be shown to have been caused by the company not carryingl on the work of construction with business-like spccnl. The deed provides as a penalty for not having the trams ready for traffic by that date the payment of the sum of £50 per week, a.nd in case of failure to run the cars after that date a penalty of £8 per week, but these penalties can only he enforced by frying1 *ne "ot'ce as mentioned in my above answers, 1 and 2. 4. If the concessions asked for are gra.nted what will the* position of the Council be with regard to the penalty clauses? —]f the concessions asked for arc. granted, then the position of the Council with regard to Ihe penalties will very much depend upon the terms in which the concession is actually granted, and 1 would therefore advise the Council thai, if such concession is granted a proper deed should be. prepared between the Council and the company, by which the granting of such concession should not in any way prejudice the Council in the enforcement of the penalties and the other rights of the Council under the contract at the* expiration of the extended periods. Mr Kidd moved: "That the Committee's recO'm.Tnendation with the city solicitor's opinion be referred back to the L«g-al Committee." Mr Garratt moved that the clause be struck out.

Mr Parr moved: "That the Committee's recommendation with the city solicitor's opinion be referred back to the Committee." With regard to the forfeiture of the penalty of £ 1000 for not substantially commencing the work by June 1. he considered there were great difficulties in the way of the Council at present forfeiting the deposit, while with regard to the penalty if trams were not running by June 1, 1002, there appeared to be right in the Council to forfeit the. £1000 for that reason alone. They should see that the Compa.ny carried out their contract. Their duty was quite plain in the matter. Let the Company phow that they meant business. He would like to see the Company taking up the streets and laying down the rails. At the present time they did not know -whether the Company meant business or not. The Company had no right, to ask for further concessions. Pie would move, "That the Council decline to vary or alter the contract."

Mr Hannan seconded

Mr Stichbury thought the matter should go back to the Legal Committee. Mr Court thought they should act at once and not refer the matter to the Committee.

Mr Masefield thought the Council should decide whether the Company should be granted the four months' concession asked or. He failed to see that the Council had much to complain of in connection with, the work.

Mr Hewson said that if tbe reasons advanced by Mr Hansen for the delay were correct, there was no reason why the further concession should not be granted. Mr Kidd said the Company were not asking for an extension of the final time, but only for an extension for a particular circuit. Mr Parr's amendment was carried by eight votes to four, the voting being, for the amendment: Messrs Patten-son, Gurrat.t. Kosser, Htfwson, Dignan, 11-an-nanl Parr and Court: against: Messrs Glover, Julian, Masefield and Stiebbury.