A Confiding Contractor.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 47, 29 September 1887, Page 2

A Confiding Contractor.

Doubtful Payment and generous offer; At the Harbor Board meeting on Tueaday the Finance Committee advised that a claim of £33 8s lid on the block mould contract should not be paid. Mr Houlden Wrote etplalning the petition* and pathetically submitting hi# case for their consideration! The Chairman could see no other courts than to move the adoption of the report. They had made a mistake in acknowledging any liability to Captain Tucker. Mr Chambers seconded, Mr Matthewsun said this Wat one of those things that should be enquired intd. After disouesion it was decided to hear Mr Houlden personally. He said that Haughey being desirous of leaving the colony, had asked him to take over the contract, but Mr South, representing himself and the other surety (Captain Tucket); had refused to allow a transfer. Houlden then got a power of attorney from Haughey, being assured by him end Mr South that the contract was a good thing. The latter was to receive all moneys, and Houlden would get his share out of the profits, five per cent, of which was to go to Haughey. Williams, the other Contractor, subsequently went bankrupt, and the whole thing was left on Houlden's hands, and he had done his best and advanced money out of his own pocket to satisfactorily complete the work.

The Engineer gave an account of how the work had proceeded until Houlden became connected, it appeared to him as a kind of general overseer, About the beginning of June, when they Wanted the work patsed, he sent a carpenter to inspect the work; and the latter reported that it would take eleven men a fortnight to complete the moulds. On the 17th June he began having the moulds altered. The floors were completed on the 25th, and on the 2nd July Houlden was told of what was being done. Litters had been sent to the sureties, to the Assignee in Williams’ estate, and to Houlden, In reply to a question, Mr Houlden said he did not believe the sureties had a legal assignment of the contract. Mr Dickson was afraid Mr Houlden had been too confiding.

Major porter sfiid there had evidently been a piece of sharp practice op the part of one of the sureties. If the Board had wrongly paid money to the sureties, it was only a matter of equity to pay the man who had done all the work.

After further discussion Major Porter moved that the sum of £B2 Ils 81, balance .Of amount held back, be paid to Houlden for labor done.

Mr Sunderland seconded, partly from sympathy aud partly because the Board had made a mistake. When Houlden went away and Williams failed the Board should have gone straight to the sureties, instead of which they let Houlden go on with the work. If they had gone to the sureties there would have been no more bother about it. . Mr Chambers: Where are we to get the money from ? We have entered into a contract to have certain work done at a certain price. The Board has been put to extra expanse in completing the work, and I do not think we are justified in paying a single penny mdre than we have done. I sympathise with Mr Houlden, but if one contractor has bolted and another gone bankrupt, it has nothing to do with the Board. Ido not think it is a proper position to take up for the Board to listen to this complaint, or to go between sureties and contractors, or we will have to decide on all contracts we go into. Mr Townley said if they had doue wrong in one case t.vo wrongs would not make a right. If there was anything wrong Houlden had his remedy against the sureties—the Board did not know him in the matter. There would be no use giving contracts if they listened to these complaints, which would everlastingly be preferred. They had sympathy with the surety, who said he had lent money on the contract. Now Mr Houlden eaid he had lent and lost money, Where was thia to end 7 The business of the Board could not be carried on safely in this way. £hsy had taken legal advice, and resolved to keep what money they had, Houlden admitted that the work was in such a bungle when he took it over that it was clear there would be a losa, and tho Board had no right to go between sureties and employers. The Engineer had shown that the Board would lose considerably, and they had no right to pay this money out of their funds, Ho would object on prin oiple,

The Chairman said it seemed very clear that Houlden was there with the most ample powers from Haughey to act in his place, and the plain fact was that he had been most completely had, but he must bear the burden* The speaker was quite satisfied that the Board had no right, legally or equitably, to pay money for what they were not liable, and the sooner they acknowledged it in all their business the better. Sentiment must be thrown aside. The payment would be unjustifiable and their only course was to adopt the Committee’s report. Houlden still had his remedy against Haughey, and perhaps against the sureties—if the surety had not acted right towards Haughey let Houlden as Haughey’s attorney commence an action against him.

Mr Dickson said they would all agree to a certain extent with what had fallen from Mr Townley, but on the other hand the affair had got into a muddle. On the certificate of their Engineer progress payments had been made, and the work must have been, up to the time of the full progress payments being made to the sureties, satisfactory to the Engineer and his superintendents. • He could not see why, as a matter of fact and matter of justice, the balance of the money should noj be equally as well paid as the handing over of the deposit. If they had acted wrongly fo r instance and imagined they were right, he did not see why they should not act in the same manner now as an act of justice. If on the advice of their Engineer one payment had been made, they were liable for the balance.

The Chairman said it was a fallacious argument to say that because certain money had been paid the rest must be paid, if the work were not done according to specifications. Mr Townley : This 21 per cent, lias been kept back for a contingency and that contingency has arisen. Major Porter said, in reply to the question where the money was to come from, if the Board could pay £5O to the sureties, why could they not pay a just sum to the man who was really entitled to the money ? It was preposterous to say it would take eleven men a fortnight—l3l men for a day— to complete the work. The amendment was carried, the Chairman and Messrs Chambers and Townley being against. The Chairman and Mr Chambers asked that their protest b? recorded. Major Porter: And I wish it also to be recorded that if the money cannot be legally paid, I will pay it myself, I am so convinced of the justice cf the claim.