MOTUHORA QUARRY CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4906, 27 June 1918, Page 6

MOTUHORA QUARRY CASE

LITIGATION OVER A CONTRACT. RICHARDSON V. MOTUHORA QUARRY COMPANY. "AN INTERESTING LAW SUIT. ' * - ✓ Frederick Richardson, 0 f Gisborne, contractor (Mr Burnard), brought an action against the Motuhora Stone Quarry Company Ltd., (Mr Lusk with whom was associated Mr Blair), for the recovery of £SOO balance of contract money due and £525 ior extra work performed.' The particulars of the claim are as follows: 1. Balance due under contract, £SOO. 2. (a) Timber supplied for tram above hopper, £4 10s; (b) repairing road below Or Us, £l3 12s; (c) engineering work in respect of the Tine from quarr v to crusher, £7 7s; (d) preparation of plan of trucks and sheds, £8 8s; (e) preparation of plan and incidental work in connection * with Motuhora,- railway hopper etc., £7 7s; (f) expenses in connection with -camp while engaged oh Company’s work, £75; (g) preparation of samples of work for Company £2 7s; (h) fee in connection with engineering visits to Motuhora railway yards before commencement of works, £ll 10s; (i) fee in connection with subsequent visits to Motuhora railway yards, £5 ss; (j) fee in connection with engineering work in respect of tram from crusher to Orr’s (3 per cent on tender), £2l 15s; (k) fee in connection with engineering work on road formation, storm water channel, cram loop, culvert, retaining wall etc., £53 6s; (1) fee on supervision and inspection oi works from time to time, £2so;' travelling expenses incurred on behalf of the Company, £2l; (n) fee in connection with the visit of Mr Shields to Gisborne etc., £7 7s; (o) fee in conection with inspection of railway yards with Messrs Widdop and Orr, £7 7s; (p) fee and expenses in connection with .visits to Borough yards_ re’ Company’s gear, | £7 7s; (q) fee in connection with alteration of time at Powell’s camp, £7 7s; (r) extra insurance paid, £5; (s) fee in connection with several trial lines from crusher to -Orr’s, £7 7s; total. £1025 2s. Defendant’s statement of defence and counter claim is a denial of cer- - tain of the allegations, and sets out that part of the agreement was that plaintiff would have a test of the machinery installed by him- but upon «. test being attempted the machine failed to do the work required and plaintiff refused to go on with the completion and satisfactory performance of the contract. Bv reason of ( plaintiff’s default the defendant com- 1 pan v was forced to employ other en- i gineers to complete the work at a f cost of £359 11s 4d. Plaintiff also f neglected to complete certain strip- 1 ping work for which he was duly t paid, and the cost of completion t would be £ls. Under the contract I plaintiff contracted to erect the c machinery on a concrete iiedestal t upon a sound rock basis. Plaintiff t did not carry out this part of his i: contract in a proper manner, with p the result that defendants woukl t have to incur considerable expense in JS rectifying plaintiff’s omissions. Do- 1 fendants counter-claimed for £374 11s I 4d. and in an amended statement a of defence set out . particulars .of p costs and damage claimed at £427 16s IV Bd, including loss of profit and inter- C est during stoppage of eighteen work- t< ing days. le His Honor said they would hear m the claim and counter-claim together. B The following special jury was tl empanelled: J. R. Jones, M. L. fc Foster, W. H. Chrisp, W. E. Buswcll, cc W. F. Cederwall, T. R. Jt Adams, tl E. P. Mountfort. A. L. Muir. J. A. cc

McDonald', W. H. Irvine, T. Corson, and T- A. Oolenian (forman).

THE CASE FOR THE CONTRACTOR.

Mr Burnard, in opening, said the claim arose out of a contract entered into for the supply and delivery of a quantity of machinery at Motuliora. About the time of the inception of the Company, Messrs Mount, Orr and Paslev were closely associated in forming the Company, and in procuring the necessary plant. Mr Richardson owned a complete quarry plant, which was at Gisborne. Negotiations were entered into for the purchase of the plant, and it was finally agreed that the plant be purchased for £2OOO, this amount to cover cost of erection. The letters which passed between the . parties showed precisely what the arrangements were. In one of his letters Mi* Richardson wrote agreeing to sell the plant for £ISOO cash and 500 fully paid shares. He himself took up another 100 shares, and became a director of the Company. Subsequently he was pushed off the Directorate. His Honor said that if he had a contract with the Company, that would disqualify him for a seat on the Directorate.

Mr Burnard said that at the.commencement of July, 1917, most of the work was completed. ,It was then that the agreement was signed. The agreement was not happy in its terms seeing that it referred in particular terms to a plant that was already on the ground. The first arrangement was that Mr Richardson’s plant, as it stood, was to he supplied to the Company. In September the weather was very wet, and no very great progress had • been made. The Company sent for Mr Shields, of Dunedin, to make a report. He did so. and made a series of recommendaions, and the Company apparently was now endeavoring to have some of these recommendations carried out at the expense of plaintiff. Mi busk: The agreement is in writing. Mr Burnard: That may be. Certain portions of the plant were attacked by Mr Shields. Clause 9 of the agreement provided for a, test of 25 days, the Company to supply the stone- In order to supply the stone tramways had to be constructed and other work done. The agreement contemplated that on September 2, this test should be made. In November it was found that the Company could not supply the stone for the test and the plaintiff could not he expected to await their convenience. The plaintiff wrote on the 17th and 22nd of November, an f i in the latter he stated that the plant was running satisfactorily, and invited the Company to come and see it. The Company appointed a quarry manager an the beginning of December, and the plant was then handed over to the Company. There was no doubt that both parties at that time regarded the contract ah completed. lhe plaintiff’s view of the matter was clearlv set out in a letter of January 29. On May 6. 1918, the Company wrote to M-r l&ichardson R ta . - ing what had been done in order to bring the work into line with That set out in the contract with Richardson. He would have no difficulty in showing that the work had been properly done. Under the contract the crusher was to be erected on a concrete bed, but this could not be done owing to the formation - of the ground and the relation of the crusher-* to the oil engines, A solid foundation of wood had been formed, and this was known bo the Company before the contract was made. Again it was stated that the engine was

19 h.p. instead of 20 h.p., but the engine was the one contemplated in March, and which was on the ground in July. The claim was for £SOO, the balance of the total amount duo on the, contract. Plaintiff had received £IOOO in cash and 500 shares, which had been allotted in March. Mr Lusk : The £SOO represented 25 per . cent retained till the contract had been completed. His Honor: The £IOOO was paid beioi'e the controversy; Mr Burnard: They could get the exact dates. The defendant claimed that £374 would have to he expended to bring the work into lino with the contract. . They further said that the oil engine had broken down. A portion of the claim was for further work done for the Company. _ From time to time plaintiff was given instructions to carry out certain work for the Company. The first was the supply of timber; the second, road work; the third, engineering work (requiring the employment, by Mr Richardson, of two men). Another item represented the actual out of pocket expenses in maintaining his camp while .lie was doing special work for the Company. He made no charge for the work where these expenses were claimed. His Honor: Is there anything in til©' agreement about extras or outside work. Mr Burnard : I think not. His Honor:. Is the £75 extra for, camp expenses attributable to the work for which Mr Richardson obtained no other payment. Mr Burnard : Yes.

PLAINTIFF IN THE WITNESS BOX. The plaintiff, civil engineer and contractor, said he owned a quarry plant at the commencement of 1917, which was in Niven an,] Co’s, yard, Gisborne. Prior to the inception of the Company he, in company with Mr Mouat and Mr Orr, inspected the plant, and on the prospectus of the Company it was stated that the plant could be procured for a sum of £2OOO. After the formation of the Company negotiations took place between plaintiff and the Company in reference to the acquisition of the plant. As a result witness wrote the letter, already read, dated 12th March, and received a letter dated 14th- March from the Company. Plaintiff supplied the Company with a list of the items comprising the plant, an f ] their value. On 20th March, witness again wrote to the Company and an agreement was entered into on the basis set out in the letters. Plaintiff commenced to re- ! move the plant on the 26th March, i Between that date, and July 14, when ■ the contract was signed, the engineer j for the Company (Mr Mouat), was j constantly on the ground 'inspecting J the work. Other officials of the.* company also visited the ground, including Mr Orr, Mr Hallamore, Mr Pasle v and Mr Pvke. About April 13 a progress payment of £SOO was made. About May 27 there was a second progress payment of £435. Mr Lusk: The first payment was on" the machinery. Plaintiff: By July 14 the a ark was practically finished. The progress payments showed that. Apart from the retention money only £65 remained unpaid. It was on July 14 the agreement between plaintiff and the company was signed. He went on and completed the work on November 22. |

To His Honor: Having other work on hand caused the delay in completion. The quarry had not been opened up bv November and the company was not then in a position to use tlic plant. On the 27th he wrote stating that everything was in readiness. A similar letter was sent on the 22nd. .

His Honor: I see the compan v was to pay the 2-5 per cent one week after the plant was in running order. Mr Burnard: It was not contemplated in the agreement that tbe work could not be completed till November.

Plaintiff further stated that' on completion of the work he handed all the tools_ over to the manager and several times showed members of the directorate how to run tbe plant. On November 22 when the first test was made with the plant. Mr Orr was present. The test contemplated in the agreement was never made because the company did not have the 100 yards a day of metal necessary. Only about 15 yards were available. After showing th e company how to work the plant, he came into town and saw Mr Pasley and handed him the key of the engine shed. That would be early in the month of December. Plaintiff contended that the whole contract had been completed at that time and the work taken over. He knew that ill the meantime Mr Shields had been brought up to report but he ha r t seen that report yesterday for the first time. On July 29, he wrote to the company demanding settlement and stating that he intended to sever his connection with the company and would put his shares up for auction. On May 6, after conference negotiations with the company he received a letter from the compan v setting out what had to be done to bring the plant into line with- the contract. The cost was stated to be £374 11s 4dMr Lusk said tbe company was obliged to enlarge the claim because the engine broke dovup Plaintiff said the machinery and plant inspected by the provisional directors was that which witness erected on 1 the ground. The directors had not seen one portion—flic screen. The company’s engineer was supplied in March 'with particulars of the screen which was made in 'Wellington and the screen supplied was in accord with the particulars. I be foundation of the crusher was to have been of concrete but he did not make it of concrete because tne ground formation was not suitable. The oil engine and crusher had to be a certain 'distance apart owing to the driving belt. The oil engine was placed on concrete foundatibns because there was a reef of hara rock there. That rock was not available as a foundation for the crushei. lhe crusher was placed on a wooden foundation which was thoroughly sat- ’ and had been sanctioned bv the company ? s engineer. ... ' His Honor: Did you receive any progress payments after that? Plaintiff,: Nq. _ , , Mr Burnard: As a. matter.. of fact the"' company had no engineer when you applied for your last paymentPlaintiff: Before ; July 11 he had put in the foundations of the crushei and on the- date named'the crusher was up.. After that he received the final payment of £65.- Tins would bo in January. : Mr-Mon at would be. engineer for the compan v when the £(>o

was paid,' but witness did not remember receiving any certificate authorising payment. The company received no notice of his claim in respect to a number of items. In connection with the engineering charge he had to make four or five trips to the railway station and twice lie was accompanied by two men. Referring to item (F), an amount for £75, witness said that he had so far only .been allowed wages for the men. The item included payment for, the cook, tools and general keep of the camp for, a period of 89 days duripg which he was not engaged on his own contract and was employing doing the company’s work. Sometimes lie had paid 15s a day for a cook. Witness further said his claim was reducible by £l2. Plaintiff was examined on each item of his claim for special work by Mr Burnard to show that the claim ; was justifiable. MR LUSK CROSS-EXAMINES. Cross-examined by Mr Lusk plain-' tiff said that Mr Mouat,' Mr Orr and himself formed /themselves into a syndicate for the purpose of working the quarry aand supplying local bodies with metal. That came to nothing and witness was one of the promoters of the company for the same purpose. He knew a good deal about, road making. The usual size of stone i for road contracts was 2-£ inches and j he knew that this would be the size }' of the stone that would have to be turned out by the quarry with the usual allowance. The original directors of the company wei'e Messrs Orr, J. W. Parker, Hallamore, Vincent Pyke, Hall and witness- He signed the prospectus which went out to the public. He remained a director of the company till the end of June, and thereafter he had remained a shareholder in the company, holding 500 fully paid and 100 contributing shares. The total number of shams issued l was 12,000. The company’s engineer from the commencement was Mr Mouat and he had remained engineer until quite recently. Some of the engineering charges for services , were made while he was a director of j the company and some while lie was a 1 promoter and he though all while Mr Mouat was engineer. His Honor: When did he cease to be a director?

Mr LUvsk: On the 28th of June, 1917.

Plaintiff : The company had given him engineering work. Mr Burnard said that at the'beginning of Juno Mr Mouat’s engineering instructions were limited.

Mr Lusk: Can you give me an instance of specific instructions to do engineering work ? Plaintiff: Personally members of the directorate spoke to me and asked me to do the work, principally Mr. Orr. This was during the time plaintiff was a director and after.

Mr Lusk: Did you take instructions from another director?—l took them from the directors’ meetings.

Mr Lusk: Then these instructions would be in the minute book?—Not necessarily. Plaintiff said he was to instal the machinery for £2OOO in good working order and was to giv e it a month’s run, the company to supply the metal.

Mr Lusk: Did you not, after making that agreement, deny that you had 4ver made the agreement about the month’s trial ?—After December 2 I was not obliged to give a trial. Mr Lusk: Did you not deny that you had ever agreed to give them a month’s trial? —I don’t remember. Mr Lusk read witness’s letter showing that he held that the company having appointed Mr Williamson manager had broken the agreement with him. —The manager had nothing to do with the test. Mr Lusk: You wrote to the company stating that you were only obliged to give a test if appointed manager of the company. You expressed the opinion that by appointing Mr Williamson manager they had broken their agreement with you. Do you still believe that?—Yes. - Mr Lusk: If you put in the plant yourself and received £2OOO you were to give a month’s run?—Yes. His Honor: If he did not instal there was to be no month’b trial P Mr Lusk: No. •Mr Lusk: In a letter to the company you stated that your letter of March 20 said that your agreement was to guarantee for one month, not run for one * month ?—That is the same thing, isn’t it. Mr Lusk: Was the machine erected by you in good going order and fit for the purpose for which it was intended ?—lt was. Mr Lusk: Was the screen intended to screen metal of 2| inches in diameter ?—Yes. Mr Luhk: You know what association standard means?-—Yes.

Mr Lusk: It means that 2% inch metal will go through 2| inch rings ? —No, through 2f inch rings. He remembered Mr Shields coming on to the ground in September, when witness was there. Mr Pasley had shown witness where Mr Shields thought changes were necessary" to put the plant in good working order. His Honor: Mr Shields suggested a 35 foot screen. What size was yours?—Nine feet. Mr Lusk: On September 20 you got a letter from the company stating that they would require you to carry out the recommendations of Mr Shields?—Yes.

Mr Lusk: Is it not a fact that you declined to carry out the work?— Yes; they were all extras. / Mr know that the company has since done all these things? —No; the screen only hais been changed. Mr Lusk: The only difference since you left is that there is a new screen? —There has been a lot of work done but not the work I was asked to do. - . Mr Lusk:" You did go up and give a demonstration on February 6? — Yes. . \ MORE ABOUT THE TEST. Mr Lusk : Am I . right in. saying that the demonstration was a miserable failure ?—No; the breakdown was due to the company’s engineer. Mr Lusk: Am I\not right in saying that no on© hut you had anything to dp with the running of the machinery that day?—No; The manager had. The company did not ask for another display and witness had not offered one. The reason for the breakdownthat day was that Mr Williamson had tried to run the engine on Jialf a tank of water''and there was no circulation. The tank was. in good order -when witness placed it on the ground. , I Mr Lusk: You contracted to put the crusher on a concrete foundation ?—I did. i . | : ..Mr Lusk: Now you say it wag not necessary ?—lt would ,have been a big .'error.,' . - His Honor: Who choolse the site? —lt' was the only one available. Mr Lusk : You never got the permission of the- company to substitute wood for concrete ? —Yes; they saw

the wood and knew;what I was doing. Mr Lusk: You never got the; engineer’s consent ?—He was on the ground and consented to it as I understand. ' Mr Lust:: On November 27 you wrote to the company telling them that the work had been completed. Did you offer at that time to give a test?—l did personally, and it was to he carried out when it could be ari’anged within a reasonable time. Mr Lusk : On February 1 they asked .you to give the test and on February 6 you gave it?—There was no nietal for the test on February 6. He went to show them how to run it nnd would have run for a day had there been 100 yards of metal. Mr Lusk: You were onlv able to put through 15 yards. Was that test satisfactory?—As far as it went. The test failed for -want of water and there was so much carbonising that the engine would have to be taken to pieces and cleaned before the test could he resumed. Mr Lusk: What reason did you assign for not going on ?—That I could not run the oil engine in its then condition and .that there should he 100 yards of stone plus screenings. Mr Lusk: The directors wrote to you on February 15 asking you to put the machine in order? —Yes. Mr Lusk: You did not reply ? —I refused to do it. Mr Lusk : Putting the machine in order cost the company £374 and the company wrote to you in March relative to -the necessity for repairs. Did you answer that?—Mr Burnard did. Mr Lusk: You say that when you came to town on November 27 you gave the key to Mr Pasley. Is it not a fact that you first tried to get Mr Williamson to take the key and that he refused?—Mr Williamson did not refuse to take over the plant. He said he had no authority to take the key. Mr Lusk: Is it hot a fact that Mr Paslev refused to take the key?— 1 No.

THE HISTORY OE THE CLAIM

Mr Lupk: You are claiming £525. All the items for which you claim would have been completed prior to November 1917?—eYs. Mr Lusk: Ts this a genuine November 1917 ?—Yes.

Mr Lusk: When did you first make this, account? —There is an item, £4 10s for which I put iir a previous account. Mr • Lusk : You ' never made a claim on the company for any item in this claim with the exception of £4 10s until the day you issued the writ? —Yes. Mr Lusk: Did you not say that you only made the second claim to cover your lawyer? Mr Burnard: Let me tell my friend that the amount will more than cover the law expenses if allowed.

,Mr Lusk: So you gave til] 10 o clock the following morning to pay £s2s?—Yes.

Mr Lusk: Had you any idea of asking the company to pay any portion of the account for £525 ‘before you issued the writ?—Yes. Mr Lusk: On November 17 you wrote to the company asking for a payment and among the items was the £4 10s for timber?—Yes. Mr Lusk: On the 19th of December, 1917, you forwarded on account to the company for £757 Ss Id. This on the face of it was a complete account to date. On that date you did not say anything about anv of' the items which make up the £525 you now, claim and in connection with which the whole of the work was then done. There were two subsequent letters claiming balance of moneys due and though hard up for money you say nothing about the £s2s?—The work dated back to the commencement of the contract and I made no charge in any of my accounts to the company for engineering work, intending to make out a separate account at the end., Mr Lu.jk: Why did voii not tell the company when sending in your accounts that you had another' account against them?—They could not expect £SOO worth of engineering work for nothing. ' On being further questioned witness said that he did tell Mr Paisley that he had another account. _Mr Lusk: This will be flatly denied. When and where did you tell Mr Pasley?—ln his office: I told him that there would be other accounts later on.

Mr Lusk: Have you just thought of this interview with Mr Pasley?— No. Mr Lusk read a letter to the company in which plaintiff insisted on full payment by December 2? —What I asked for was the amount that was kept back. His Honor: Plaintiff has been paid the whole of his account of the 19th December except the £SOO. Mr Lusk: You have an item. £l2 12s, for work in connection with a road. Some of the work was for Mr Orr’s private benefit. Can you give any reason why the company should prepare a road for Mr Orr’s private use?—No.

Mr Lusk : From the commencement were you not continually dabbling in Mr Mouat’s work ?—lf I saw anything wrong. L told them. Mr Lusk: Did you not say that you could get a better tramway line P—** I told them • I could get an easier grade. ~~ . Mr Lusk: Had you any instructions to interfere with Mr Mount?— Mr Orr asked me if I could findl a better grade and I told him that I thought I could. / Mr Burnard: Would you take instructions from a fellow director ? Yes.; and I have been paid for work done on instructions from Mr Orr and other directors.;. ' Mr Lusk: And do you suggest that the instructions came frorn Mr Orr or other directors euite apart from a meeting of the Board of Dirictors ? In one .case instructions had been given by the Board of Directors. He took it that in all cases. a director 'iwould act nnder instructions bv the hoard. ' v -His Honor asked Mr Burnard if .he could produce any minute of tbe company’‘s to show that the act of the directors was binding on the company. ' ■ Mr Burnard said he understood 'that the hoard muddled - along and that no proper records were kept. Thev met and gave instructions verbally. ' *

", Mr Lusk: You are asking us to pay 3 per cent on £725 on 9, tl’aTnway -contract. Were yon not in*.the position of a tenderer? —He understood that, he was instructed by 'the company to make the survey, v Mr Lusk produced a letter in whifch plaintiff offered to do the work for £725. Witness further stated that, he had asked the company to allow him to do certain work sp that ho could k/mp his men on the spot. so> that they

would be ready when lie wanted to get oh with his own work. He paid them 16s a day. Mr Lusk: In one of your accounts you, an asking; for payment, state that the dharges made left little or no margin. Jg, that true?—Yes, Mr Lusk: You are charging £250 _for certain services during the ■ 89 days you were with the Company. Was that irrespective of other work for The Company separately charged? —Yes; all the work he did for the Company was included in his letter of December 19 but in only two had he included the engineering charges. Mr Lusk gave details of the work in respect to which he said plaintiff was .charging £2,50. His Honor: ■ It appears • that the engineering charges are about three times .the amount of the work. Mr Lusk: You. say you were engaged for 89 days on day labor for the Comp a 113’ ?—Yes. Mr Lusk: Th© £l7B was the fees you charged for supervising work done in the 89- days for the Com- . pany ? —Yes. Mr Lusk: The work you did totalled £346 and you charged £l7O for fees? —Yes.

Mr Lusk: Anc] you also charged £53 6s for engineering work? —Those were legal fees.' Mr Lusk: That will do.

To His Honor : The machine which he had undertaken to put up was there in December. To Mr Burnard: Witness’s screen would supply metal in with the requirements of local bodies. The screen Vas actually used by witness in Wellington in the supply' of 2-J- in metal for local bodies and worked satisfactorily. A- tank which was taken exception to was still in use by witness. Witness had .seen a copj T of -Mr Shield’s report. The Company’ had not carried out what Mr Shield suggested. They had not even substantially carried out the bulk of Mr Shield’s recommendations. What Mr Shield had communicated to witness on the spot had not been carried out. To Mr Lusk: Witness attended a meeting of a sub-committee on May 20 for the purpose of going into his account.

Mr Burnard said the meeting was without prejudice and witness concurred.

MR MOUAT GIVES HIS EVIDENCE.

John Mount, engineer and surveyor Said he was one of the original promoters of the Company. Prior to the formation of the Company, Mr Hoare and witness had . conversations and it was clearly’ understood that the plant being handy in Niven and Co.’s yard, it was desirable to foi*m the Company. Everything was in the yard except the screen and a few shafting rods. On the formation of the Company, witness was appointed engineer. The letter of appointment stated that Richardson would erect the plant under the direction of the Company’s engineer. Plaintiff supplied witness with particulars of the screen and the screen supplied was in accordance with these particulars. Witness supplied specifications and contract for the erection of the plant. This was on April 13, 1917. His Honor: But the first progress payment was made on April 13. Mr Burnard: That just shows how the Company conducted its business. Witness said he signed no certificates for payment for the erection of the crushing plant. In July witness accompanied Mr Orr and Mr Pasley to inspect the crushing plant. The woik was then in a very advanced stage. Timber foundations had been put under the crusher instead of concrete. Witness later asked Mr Parley if the contract had been signed and he said it had not. Witness reported the. whole matter to the chairman of directors, Mr Hallamore. Witness also put in a report regai'ding the timber foftndations, but no contract being signed witness could not handle the matter officially. Witness got no instructions from the company in reference to the matter. Witness inspected the crusher on Monday week \\ itness had previously inspected, the site of the crusher and the underlying rock was not sound. The engine was on a good foundation of sound rock. It was not' possible to put both on a rock foundation at the particular .place. Witness advised Mr Hallamore that the company could accept the timber foundations provided an adjustment- was made between the cost of timber and concrete. Witness had inspected the foundation on Monday week and it was apparently sound. In witness’s opinion Mr Richardson had attended to everything required excepting the foundation and witness would have liked to have seen a 25-days’ run which would have established every weakness at Mr Richardson’s expense. The latest date contemplated for the test was December 2. but at that time a test was impossible as there was no connection'between the quarry and the crusher. The line was not m a condition to run material until January. The first time they laid it down- it was unstable. ~ , Continuing, witness said the screen used by Mr Richardson would Supply requirements when used in adjustment with the of the an adjournment was made: until 10 o’clock this morning.