The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1873.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3863, 12 June 1873, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1873.

It is fair to presume that, in the majority of cases, men resort to law with the view of obtaining, and with the belief that they will obtain, justice. The fact that, from time immemorial, a distinction has been drawn between the two proves the existence of a conviction that a close and impartial application of the law does not always imply the administration of broad justice. Cases are frequently decided, and necessarily so, on purely technical points, without any reference to their actual merits —before, indeed, any opportunity is afforded for bringing them forward. The records of our law courts will furnish abundant proof of this, and most people can draw upon their personal experience for confirmation of the statement. Law is obtainable always, hut justice does not necessarily follow on every appeal that is made to its administrators.

A striking case iu illustration of these observations has been before the public of Canterbury, in one shape or another, for the last six or eight years. They have seen it reported that Holmes and Co. v. the Superintendent came on for hearing in the Supreme Court, that it was ordered to stand over for the amendment of some technical point, that it was argued on demurrer, and so on ad nauseam. Now they learn, after all this

litigation, that the case baa been finally decided by the Court of Appeal. Legally, it has been decided. Messrs Holmes and Co. are out of Court, and the province has gained a complete legal victory, about which there can be no doubt whatever. Bat the question arises—should the province, in justice to itself, with a strict regard for its own honour and high position in the colony, and with a proper sense of what is due to the claims of equity, simply accept this victory and abide by the legal pound of flesh that has been meted out to Messrs Holmes and Co. P They are placed in this position, that without having had an opportunity of showing on what grounds they base their claim against the province, they cannot make any farther attempt to enforce those claims by law. They are shut out of the courts for ever on technicalities, and the merits of their case have never been considered. Nine men out of ten, when they consider the position dispassionately, will come to the conclusion that Messrs Holmes and Co. have received law but not justice. And, arriving at this conclusion, they will logically follow it up by saying that the province cannot afford, for the considerations we have mentioned, to hold hardly and sternly by its legal victory. ■ It is not denied that Messrs Holmes and Co. have claims against the province, as they put it, “ for work and “ labour done outside tjie contract.” This work, which was not provided for in the contract, and could not be because it resulted from changes made by the engineers after the contract was signed, may or may not be worth all that Messrs Holmes and Co. say it is; but if the work was done —and this is admitted —it ought to be equitably paid for. The province cannot take up the plea that has been suggested, and say to the claimants — “ You made a handsome profit out of your contracts altogether, and therefore these claims for extra work must be disallowed.” Whatever profit was made out of the contracts was made legitimately after a properly considered bargain had been made, and work beyond the contracts cannot be set against this profit. If John Nokes, carpenter, &a., agrees with James Smith to build a house for the latter at a certain price; and if Smith aforesaid, while the house is in progress, orders certain deviations from the work specified in the contract, he cannot turn round upon Nokes, when he demands extra payment for these deviations, and put him off by saying —“ You have made a handsome profit out of your contract, and I shall certainly not pay you for these extras.” Cases similar in every respect to that we have supposed occur every day in the ordinary course of business, and as a rule they are settled without recourse to law. We submit that the case between Messrs Holmes and Co. and the Provincial Government is substantially of the same character, and that if work and labour has been done, which has not been paid for, the credit of the province demands an equitable settlement one way or the other. The law has not said, has had no opportunity of deciding, whether money is due for work and labour done, for the case, as. we have before remarked, has never been heard on its merits. A simple and proper solution of the question suggests itself. The Provincial Government, as representing the whole province, can ask the Council to sanction the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the equity of the claim, such Commission to consist of men with sufficient business capacity and undoubted impartiality—men like Messrs C. C. Bowen, J. Studholme, and H. P. Murray-Aynsley, for instance. On their report, or award, being submitted to the Government, the latter could again lay the matter before the Council, with whom the final decision would rest. Such a course would show that the province is determined to be just and fair in all its dealings.