HENDERSON V. NAPIER HARBOR BOARD.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5288, 23 January 1879, Page 2

HENDERSON V. NAPIER HARBOR BOARD.

(by special wire.) . ..; Christchurch, January 22. The case of Henderson against qhe - * Napier Harbor Board was resumed today in the Supreme Court. His Honor said that he would suggest „,.• for the consideration of the learned counsel on both sides whether the finding _-- } of the jury might not be taken on two . points: (1) whether there had been fraudulent collusion on the part of the board and the engineer, and (2) supposing the jury should be of • opinion that there had been no fraud, whether there X had been improper conduct short of fraud. If this were done it would ma- - a terially shorten the case, and divest it of i much of its complicated character. If ,< the jury found in the negative, the remainder of the case would fall. .. , Mr Rees said that the new paragraph in the declaration would have to be con- -._. sidered, as it contained substantial cause of action. „- \> His Honor said that there might be something in that. ' :•<;■; The summing up then took place, and the jury, by consent, retired and found; r i as follows : — Has the defendants' engineer, fraudu- ' lently in collusion with the defendants and Vj by their procurement, refused to certify- J to the amount due upon the contract, and for the extra additional alterations and omissions under the said contract 1 — Yes. The foreman said that the jury did not^ wish it to be understood that in their " opinion there was any moral fraud. _ ■.; Did the defendants, wrongly and improperly, and without the knowledge of ■;-' plaintiff, alter the site of the work known ■: as the western embankment or mole, mentioned and described in the plans and ■ specifications, and did they order the plaintiff to construct the said wostern mole on the said altered site ? — Yes. . Did the plaintiff, not knowing, the site had been altered, proceed to. construct, and did he continue to construct, the said western mole on such altered site ? — Yes, without sufficient intimation up to April 28, 1877. "Was the plaintiff thereby put to extra trouble and expense, and had he to supply large quantities of stone not provided for in the contract hereinbefore mentioned, and was he delayed in the completion of his contract, and did he incur loss thereby ? — Yes. Some discussion took place as to whether the. expression of the jury that there was "no moral fraud " was to be regarded as part and parcel of their verdict, and the question was ultimately referred back to the jury. The jury again retired, and on their return into Court found simply " Yes," without any modification. One of the jury who was ill was then discharged from further attendance,, it being understood that the remaining eleven would be in attendance the following morning, when it is probable that some attempt will be made to come to an arrangement as to the sum (if any) to be awarded. The Court then adjourned ' until 10 o'clock the following morning.