SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5586, 20 January 1879, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Saturday, Jan. 18. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.) HENDERSON V. THB NAPIHR HARBOUR BOARD* I This case was resumed at 10 a.m. William Shepherd, examined by Mr Bees, deposed : lam a carpenter. X was engaged on the Napier Harbour Board works by Mr Henderson from Sept. 1876, to July, 1878. Tho work was completed then. I remember Mr Davies, jun, instructing me to fill in certain cavities in the beginning of May, 1878. It took about three days, and was completed on the evening of May 6. I saw Mr Davies and Mr Weber. Mr Weber came on May 3. He said nothing to me. On May' 4 Mr Davies Complained to me that one of the bays was not filled in. He said that a complaint had been made by Mr Weber. That had not been pointed oat to me, but 1 filled it after. Mr Saunders was going up and down the work, during the whole time. The bay not previously pointed out to me was filled a few days after May 6. I saw the piles carried out without being tied and braced. (The witness corroborated the evidence of -former witnesses.) To Mr Macassey: I cannot say whether a number of piles which were tied and braced 3were carried away inthe same storm., > . t James R. Davies, jun. (examinationcon* tinned by Mr Bee?); I saw .Harrison .a feyr days' him the/ contract for the rquames? ther* job upr ' Mr;Wdber , called, at officbabout itjt- -MT, "Weber- said^i /‘I see Harrison, has knocked off.”,' I said ;‘f Yes,-he says thafyou have frightened.him out of .it;” ■Mr -Weber asked, How?” I. said “That-Harrison told me that.Mr Weber wanted him (Harrison) to take : up a piece of bottom in the quarry, near tho old man’s house.” Mr Weber denied it, and said, “ I see you are starting yourselves. lam glad of that, as you will do it in a third of the time that Harrison will.” I may add that Mr Graham was present during this conversation. My men had just started with a number of men—over 20. I saw the quarries afterwards. They were fairly cleared. To His Honor: They were not swept or scraped up, but the debi-is had been substantially removed. To Mr Eces: The cavities had been filled. I never understood we were to replace the broken cross-ties. It would hare taken a couple of men half a day. We were never told that the timber was waiting there for us to do it with. Mr Weber never denied that he had agreed to do it and deduct the price. I know of nothing besides that which was said to be unfinished. I wrote to the Board about not getting the certificate on May 10. To His Honor: The Board generally sent the certificates. The secretary paid the amount of certificate into the bank to Mr Henderson’s credit, and Mr Saunders or one of the officers sent in a duplicate. To Mr Bees: I sent a copy of letter to Mr Weber. [Letter read.] On May 15 I gave notice to Harrison that his contract was at an end. Mr Kinross was Chairman of the Board.

Mr Sees: Did you have a conversation with Mr Kinross ?

Mr Macassey: Was the conversation at the Board? . Witness: No.

Mr Macassey: I object to the question. The Board cannot be responsible for what Mr Kinross said.

(After discussion His Honor ruled that the question was admissible, but took a note of the objection.)

Witness: I had a conversation with Mr Kinross: On May 13 I received a letter from Mr Kinross. [Correspondence read.) Mr Weber proposed to have cross-sections taken of the western embankment. I objected because it could not be done in consequence of the silting up. 1 had not then promised to refer the matters in dispute to Mr Henderson. It had never been arranged that no final certificate would be issued until the whole matters in dispute were disposed of. I wrote again on June 6. (Letter read.) About the time of this letter I met Mr Kinross near Oxenham and Mills in Napier. He was driving at the time, but pulled up and said, “ Oh, Mr Davies, I received your letter, but have been up country and could not reply to it. I sent it to Weber, with instructions to do what was asked.” I thanked him, and told him that I thought Mr Weber and the Harbour Board were labouring under some misapprehension as regards our certificate for works. He said he thought there had been a mistake. I told him that by our contract we were entitled to the certificate, less 10 per cent, kept in hand for maintenance, which was due in a few days. I met Mr Weber by our stables a day or two later, and spoke to him about the certificate. He shook his head, I said we had offered fairly to settle everything amicably. He said, “ You are claiming a let of extras on the other side which I don’t admit. I asked him if there were no extras. He replied that there were some. I asked him if the work was finished to his satisfaction on the western side. He said it was first-class. I then spoke of the eastern side, and drew his attention to the arrangement made with my father and Mr Henderson for the final certificates. He said, I said so, but as it was not in writing I will not bind myself to it. I repudiate everything verbal, and only stand by documentary evidence. I then instructed my solicitor to write. (Correspondenceread.) The Board purchased the loading platform and dock from us, also the tram hue. (The witness recapitulated much of the evidence previously given as to the progress and completion of the works, and gave items of his claim.) Cross-examined by Mr Macassey: The total amount of my claim is £20,082 14s 4d. The difference between that and the total just mentioned represents the £2OO a week claimed as liquidated damages. The following items would make the two sums harmonise—

Mr Stout: We give up the balance. Witness : The total claim is £13,207 13s 7d, deducting the claims withdrawn ; £BOO is to come from that, making it £12,407 18s 7d.

A long and extremely intricate crossexamination as to the various items charged followed, and a large number of letters were read and the witnesses examined upon them. ' At the close of this examination the jury, by consent of the counsel, was allowed to leave the Court at 4.6 p.m. until Monday at 10 a.m.

Learned counsel then proceeded to discuss the legal points which had been raised during the case.