RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume 75, Issue 75, 28 August 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, August 27th, 1878, (Boforo Edward Shaw, H.M.) Smith v WxiiMamj. This was an aotion to rooovor tho sum of £03 lis 41, bo'niß tho amount allogod to bo duo on a subcontract for making a portion of tho Crushington Road. Mi* Mobs appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr Roid for llio defondant, Mr Moss having oponod tho case, called tho following ovidonoa— John Williams—l am tho defendant in Iho present action, and know tho plaintiff, ho was ono of four who had a subcontract from us to construct a portion of tho Black's Point road ; I produco tho agreement entered into between us, ns also tho County Engineer's cortiflcalo of tho passing of tho work; I wont to work in pursuanco of tho agroomont, on tho road bctwoon Crushington and Blaok's Point* Wo construolod ten chains of rond rank-* ing and threo chains of log-cribbiug, Wo woro to bo paid £9 por chain forthe road and £35 por chain for tho log- cribbing. Wo eomplotod tho work, and tho cost contos to £21(1 l?s OJ. Wo havo rocoivod certain moneys on account, nnd tboro is a balauco of £93 Ids <tl romaining unpaid. Cross-examined by Mr Reid— l was ono of tho four subtcon tractors. I believe wo completed tho work according to com tract. I did not receive a notico from Williams cautioning mo to put moro mon on. Such a notico was served upon us, tho reason was that Williams had gondod mon against working for us, tolling thoin that thero was. not onough monoy to pay us- Somo of tho parluors loft us, wo bought thorn out. Caird did summon mo for wages Iho other day, nnd got judg* mont $ tho reason of his summoning mo was that I had omployod him as a wages man j it was not pro-arrantfcd that ho should summons mo boforo my bringing tho pi'Ciient action ; I. roecivod no notico from tho Engineer or contractors passing

tho work jI do not know that mon were _ put on by Williams to oompioto our por- ( tion of tho ,road. I saw mon at work there ; ] I d ; d rcooivo n notioe from Williams on tho 30lh July, stating that ho intondod to f tako possession of tho road aftor tho oxu ■y piration of sovon days, and finish it at our oxpenso j Williams did not tako possession t of tho road at tho expiration of Iho seven r days. Ho had men working thero ; bo- ] lievo Silrny did rocoivo n notioo from j Williams cautioning us to put on twolvo ( mon or tho contract .would bo annulled. I ant not awaro that Willia.ns was ros« \ ponsiblo to Oxloy for our stores ; swear f that I did not hoar him toll tho Btoronvin ( that ho would bo responsible j rooolloot | going to tho storo on a Sunday morning i to bo ' introduced \ 1 do not know tho ; amount of our Arm's storo oocount tboro. | My own account at tho stoto amounted ( to £17. Am awaro that elovon mon woro put on to work on tho oontract by WiN j Hams after tho expiration of tho sovon j days notice roforrod to ,• I consider that ; when I loft tho work throo wooks ago that it was finished. Tho work was completed by mo on tho 3rd Juno, 1878. Wo did not completo tho work within tho stipulntcd timo, but ns Williams gol an extension ot timo wo thought wo wero also entitled to tho bcnoflt of tho extension. I know nothing of £2 lent by Williams to Silrayi any moro than that I hoard Silray say that ho had rccoivod £2 from Williams ; I know of tlio cxistonoo of an T.O.U. for £5 from Silroy to Williams \ Williams went rosponsnblo for tho amount of that 1.0. U., but would not do so till ho got my sanction. Do not know tho timo Williams workod on our contract aftor the expiration of tho soven day's notico. Ro-examinod— Ono of my mato<, Ctiird, was bought out at the commoncomont of tho work, and Nicholas Carme, another of tho parly was bought out about threo months Intor ; Silray Ijoft about six weeks ago ; Silray and myself bought out Cartno nnd Caird, and Silrny 'subsequently throw up his sharo and I toolc possession of it. By tho Bonch—Tho £53 j aid to us on tho llth May was diyidod between Silrny, Cuird nnd ' mysolf. Tho £50 on tbo Bth Juno was divided botween Silny, myself only. Wo woro to pay Caird £10 for his share. Wo gavo him £5 onsh and an 1.0. U. for £5, Wo gavo Caird £3 12s for his sharo. Tho wholo of tho £93 now suod for will nearly all go to pay wagos and tradesmen's accounts i I havo soon Iho spcoifioations, and beliovo I hayo dono tho work aocording lo tho spccifl--0 Uions j I swoar that. The work was to be dono to tho approval of tho contractor, Williams and tho County Enginoor. Thoro no7or was any complaint mado by oil her of them as to tho character of iho work. Any alterations pointed out to us wo mado; I had soven tnen at work when ho put on tho olevon men, and I oould not get moro man to work owing to Williams having spread tho report lhat llio money wus not in tho contract to pay them. Williams' contract timo was oxtondod for a moiuh ; I had four or five men on tho work on nn avorapjo for tho wholo time. Sliould havo completed tho work within Iho timo agreed upon if Williams mon had not como to work jT moan within tho timo of tho last extension ; I swenr that wo could havo (limbo! tho work without aid from Williams' men. Willam's men did not do real work, thoy wore simply putting in tho timo j I believe Williams wished to intimidate mo and drivo mo off tho work. This olosod tho caso for the plaintiff, Mr Roid oponed tho caso for tho dofenco and called William Gardnor— l am Enginoer of tho County ; I produco plan nnd specifications of William's oontract. 4 Tho contract was to havo boon eomplotod within sixteon wooks from March. Tho timo was subsequently oxtondod for a month ; , 1 know tho portion of tho rond upon Which Smith workod and knew of tho cxistenco of a sub-conlraot. Had frequont ocoasion to complain of tho mnnncr in which tho subcontract was progressing, and know lhat tho subcontractor had not a sufllcont number of men nt work to j comploto it within tho extended time, j and told Williams so: Williams subsoH ( qu cully told mo that ho had put on mon ( on Uio subcontract. Saw tho mon put ( on by Williams and thoy af poarcd to bo , good workers, Tho sub- contract portion r of tho road was vory much behindhand, , On the 81st August, requested Williams , to do certain work on tho sootion to | complote it. That portion of Smith's , ovidonce statim? that tho work dono by ] William's men, was of no assistanoo ( to him is ab?olutely untruo, as had it not , boon for tho work dono by thoso mon tho ( contraot would not havo boon eomplotod ( within tho cxlondocl limo v : It was a vory » heavy portion of tho contract. , Tho Court thon aOjourncd. |