CARTAGE RATES.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 139, 9 December 1904, Page 6

CARTAGE RATES.

CITY SOLICITOR SPEAKS OUT. The Supreme Court case of Munt, Cottrell, and Co. v. the Wellington City Council, claim £583 Is 7d, difference between cos>t of carting tiamcars and lails at measurement rates and at dead weight rates, was continued befoie his Honour the Chief Justice yesterday afternoon and today. Mr. Myers, for plaintiffs, called a number of witnesses— carriers, representatives of warehouses, stevedores, etc. — in support of the alleged usage on which plaintiffs rely. ' In opening the ca&e for defendants, Mr. O'Shea said the word " ton " in the contract meant " ton weight." The usage of charging by weight or measurement according to the ship's manifest applied only to merchandise in which there was practically no difference of amount whether the charge was fixed by weight or measurement. The Government railways charged by weight or measurement on certain sec- • tions of the lines, but the measurement charge was never more than the weight charge. Plaintiffs had charged defendants eight times the weight charge. Further, the Railway Department charged half measurement rates on omnibuses and tramcars, showing that the Department recognised that the full charge of measurement on land carriage would be a gro^s overchaige. The defendants carted some of the cars themselves, and the cost worked out (according to the Harbour Board weights) at £2 10s a car ; the price offered to the contractors was £4 10s "a- car ; the price now demanded by plaintiffs worked out at £25 per car in some cases. Defendant's director, P. H. Bourke, had admitted iv evidence that before tendering for the work plaintiffs had consulted with two other firms, Curtis and Andrew, and all three put in separate tenders. "Itis a peculiar, not to say an improper and immoral thing," commented Mr. O'Shea, " for three people to agree among themselves to take v, contract, and then put in three separate tenders, for Ihe solo purpose of persuading the Corporation that it was a fair and honest price." His Honour : Were they the only tenderers ? Mr. O'Shea: They were. They knew that. His Honour : You mean they knew they were the only ones able to take the work. Mr. Myers : That is j*)t the evidence. Mr. O'Shea maintained that the whole j action was " tainted by disingenuousness and want of bona fides. They gave us a ■n eigftt price in the tender, and they now, ask this Court to say lhat it is weight and measurement. They tendered on one basih : we are being charged on another." (Left sitting.)