Supreme Court

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8111, 11 June 1906, Page 5

Supreme Court

The session of the Supreme Court was resumed before the Chiel Justice this morning. A DISPUTED CONTRACT. Milverton and Sons (Mr H. D. Bell with him Mr Cooper; v. Kairanga County Council (Mr Skerrett, with him Mr Loughnan) claim .£935 16s 5d damages and other sums in connection with a contract for metalling the Ngawhakarau road. • The following jury was empanneled : L. Simmonds (foreman). J. Duley, P. Eouberg, W. H. Cowper, T. Harriman, A. C. Stannard, J, Hensen, T. A. Grammar. J. Nilsson, J. Harwood, G. Marshel, and E. E. Watkins. The case for the plaintiff as set out by the statement of claim showed, inter alia, that about December 18tb, 1902, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendants to supply and deliver 3860 cubic yards of metal for the purpose of metalling the Ngawhakarau road aud to spread such, metal for 5s 2d per yard. A deposit of £50 was paid the defendant Council by the defendants. It alleged by the plaintiffs that owing to the road not being completely formed and ready to receive the metal they were greatly delayed in their.start upon the work. Prior to plaintiffs commencing the work defendants lowered the crown of tlxe road and so, it was alleged, materially increased the difficulties of the plaintiff m commencing their work. When grievances first com menced the plaintiffs had supplied and spread 2181 cubic yard t s of metal, valued at £611 Is Id' Plaintiffs have received from defendants £100 on account of sums due to them and admitted that defendants were entitled to deduct from that sum £38 13s ior wages. Ic was claimed that a tutu of JGSO2 3s Id still remained due on account of the metal supplied. On February 9th, J904, dtfwid&iiu wrongfully, it was alieged, declined to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with the work thereby depriving them of the profiis from the work. A second cause of action was that also ou December 18, 1902, plaintiffs co itracted to supply to the defendants 720 cubic yards of metal for a portion of the Foxton line and to spread same at a remuneration of 2s 8d per yard. A deposit of £i 10s was paid on this contract. .At the request, it was alleged, of the defendants, plaintiffs refrained from commencing the work on the second contract till the Ngawhaka- i rau road contract bad been completed. ! On February 9th, 1904, this second contract was also terminated by the defendants, and the plaintiffs were deprived of their profits. A third cause of action was that a third contract was made on December 18th, 1902, by the plaintiffs with the defendants for the delivery of 2160 cubic yaWs of metal, for another portion of the Foxton Line, at 2s 8d per yard, including spreading. A deposit of J614 was paid on the contract. Work was not commenced on the contract at the request, it was alleged, of the defendants till the NgawhakarauKoad contract was completed. This contract was also terminated on February 9th, 1904, and the expected profits lost. Plaintiffs consequently claimed on the first cause of action (1) deposit £50, <2) work done £502 8s Id, and (3) damages £183 14s 2d. On the second cause of action (1) deposit ;£4 10s, (2) damages £20 0s Id. On the third cause of action (1) deposit £14, (2) damages £162 3s lOd. The statement of defence admitted the main facts in connection with the Ngawhakarau road contract, but claimed that the amount deductable for wages was £44 3s 6d instead of £38 13s as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was denied that the alleged state of the road delayed the plaintiffs in starting the work on the first contract, also that prior to the commencement of the work, the crown of the road was lowered and plaintiff's difficulties increased thereby. Defendants alleged plaintiffs were fully aware before their acceptance of the contracts that a contract for the formation of the road upon which their metalling contract wss to be performed was in course of completion. Work done to the crown of the road in no way affeeied, it was claimed, the performance of plaintiff's work. It was denied that 24S1§ yards of metal had been supplied in accordance with the terms of the contract, but it was admitted that amount of metal had been supplied long after the time limited for the completion of the contract, and beini 1285 yards short of the quantity that should have been delivered under the contract. It was denied that a sum of £502 8s Id was due in respect of work done and it was denied that on February 9th, 1904, or any other date, the defendants declined to permit the completion of the work, thus depriving plaintiffs of their profits. Ke«ardin<; the second cause of action it was denied that plaintiffs had been prevented from carrying out their work till the No. 1 contract was completed, and, on the contrary, stated that plaintiffs had refused to carry out the second contract though repeatedly requested to do so. The same denial was made regarding the third contract. It was further alleged that on February 9th, 1904, the plaintiffs were in default on all thi; contracts and had been in default since March 31st, 1903, or thereabouts, fn consequence of the continuous default of the plain iffs the defendants in exercise of powers contained in the contracts and after repeated notices to the plaintiffs took the-work out of their hands and completed the work at the cost of the plaintiffs. Up to February 9th, 1904, plaintiffs had delivered on contract No. 1 (Ngawhakarau) 2380 yards of metal at os 2d per yard and had received £100 in part payment thereoE and £44 3s 6d for waaes to a spreader. Up to the same date plaintiffs had not done any work at all on the second and third contracts though repeatedly requested by defendants. It was deuied that any money was due to the plaintiffs under the statement of claim and if any money was due at all, which was denied, it was on the basis of accounts sent oat 'by the defendants for the completion of the work, a total of £271 lis Ba, that sum representing the difference between the contract price at which'the works should have been done by the plaintiffs and the actual moneys expended by the Council in completing the works after giving credit to the plaintiffs for 2450 yards of metal at 5s 2d, the quantity actually delivered by them on the road. Details were appended of the amounts paid by the defendants for the completion of the works under their supervision. (Left sitting).