RIVER STONE CONTRACT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 16 July 1927, Page 6

RIVER STONE CONTRACT

ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENT. CASE NOT SETTLED. At yesterday’s fitting of the Magistratevourt at OpunaKe, tiio Egmont County council sought to recover from 11. b. Alunro the stun oi £ll6 14s fid, uemg tne amount allegedly overpaid to defendant on a boulder supply contract. Messrs A. A. Bennett (New Plymouth) and It. tt. iiayertz appeared for tiie council, and Alun.ro respectively. A -statement of the claim disclosed that deiendaiit .successfully tendered for | tne supply of 3500 yards of river bonders to the council at 3s lOd per yard, and was paid by instalments, 75 per cent, of tile contract price as the work proceeded, the balance of 25 per cent, to be paitl to defendant at the expiration of 31 days from date of completion of the contract. The contract specified mat payment was to be made on quantities oi' Nos. 1 and 2 stone produced from 3500 yards of boulders. The contractor was paid for 2391 cubic yards of Nos. 1 and 2 crushed stone. No payment was to be made for resultant chips and waste from the crushings and none- was expected by defendant. Francis Alalcoi mCorkili, engineer to the Egmont County Council, gave evidence of defendant’s successful tender under the above conditions on April 15, 1924. The terms of contract were faulty in that there was no .specification as xo iiow the boulders were to be measured. Tit© measurement was difficult of accomp Lsinncnt, because the stone was dumped in irregular heaps scattered over three or four acres. Had the stone been piled in measurable heaps it would have been possible to arrive at a correct assessment of quantity. but the contractor was not under an obligation, to do so. The council’,s overseer had evident v assumed that Aluuro’s estimate of boulders paddocked was correct, as under ills co<rificate 82 per cent, of the contract monies lvad been released. Crushing of the stone in question, was not completed until about 18 months after the completion of the hauiing contract. AVitness produced a tally book .showing crushings of stone, which were in favour of defendant. Test crushings of .stone had been made in connection with this case by the County Council and by Alee-srs lsherwood and Belham. In one of these 100 cubic yards of boulders had produced 83.05 yards of Nos. 1 and 2 crushed metal, 12.06 yards of fillips and 18.2 yards of waste, a total of 113.31 yards of all siz.es of stone. Another crushing test of 1253 yards, of boulders produced 1041 A yards of metal. This latter test, under a new process, was made in the presence of defendant. The, boulders were paddocked near the Bunchu Bridge, and unauthorised iemoval of stone from the site could be easily detected. Witness had, interviewed the defendant, who claimed that the right quantity of .stone wa.s paddocked and threatened to .secure witness’s dismissal from the council’s employ if lie persisted to the contrary. He liad furnished defendant with a full

statement regarding the test crushings and pointed out the shortage of boulders. The latter had not officially repudiated the statement. To Air Baeyertz: Alunro advised him

. that his contract was complete,’, and Ins retention money was due. The coiij tract was for a straight-out supply of j 3500 cubic yards of boulders, with no I reference to any system of measurement of same. The boulders taken for the two tests were from the same river. Dry stone would not, in his opinion, make more chips and screenings than wet stone. The amount of dust produced during ern,suing operations, aim likely to blow away, was practically negligible. Munro tendered at 3s 10d on boulder measurement —not on crushed metal measurement, whereas -Messrs lsherwood and Belham, in tlieii contract, were paid for their boulders on a crushed metal basis. They were not paid for chips and screenings, and consequently would not crush with the intention of making a surplus of chips : common sense would prompt them to produce as much payable crushed metal as possible. He liad never heard oi a shrinkage m solid stone, but very dry stone would produce, in crushing, slightly more chips and screenings than stone just taken front the river. The sto-no taken for the tests bad been paddocked lor a summer and two winters, and was crushed for the tests in the winter, when wet. Considerable time was taken by crossexamination on .seemingly vague questions on percentages ot chips, screenings and dust that was likely to blow away and affect the quantity of (serviceable metal, recovered from the boulders supplied bv the defendant. The magistrate, characterised Air Baeyertz’s examination as a process of “splitting straws and beating the air,” and drew attention to the fact that “we, may be here for weeks.” Air Baeyertz: “\Y© are going to be here for weeks.” The Magistrate: “Oh, no! we artlea vlng this afternoon.” Continuing, Air Baertz elicited from the witness that Alunro was present at the first crushing tost, but. left in a motor car after only nbout one-fifth oi the stone had been crushed. There were also present the clerk of works and five members of tliei Comity Council.

To Air Bennett: There was no differ ence in the test crushings and the ordinary every-day crushings. Ini the ordinary course of his duties, he discovered the shortage of boulders and advised Ins employers (the County Council). Joseph George Mclvor clerk of works to the council, gave evidence- of keeping ta.liCh of crushings. Edward Arthur Co. Tins said ho was chairman of the council’s works committee during the currency of Munro’.s contract. The stone was paddocked near his residence at Tie Kiri, and it was practically impossible for any por--ow, to remove anv of the boulders without detection. His acquaintance with Mumri dated hack several years, and iio bad always found him strn.lghtfor-rt-nrd and honest. Walter George Pointon, county foreman in the Oeo Ruling lor several vears, gave evidence of -supervising Munro’s daily delivery of stone, from the river. Owing to the method of depositing the stone it was difficult to arrive at an estimate of quantities. At 5 p.m. further hearing of the case was adjourned to the next sitting of the Court.