Supreme Court

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8112, 12 June 1906, Page 7

Supreme Court

At the Supreme Court yesterday hearing of the claim of Milverfcon and Sons i (Mr H. D. Bell, with him Mr Cooper) I against the Kairanga County Council j (Air Skerrett, with him Mr Lough nan) 1 for <6'J3o l(i« 5d damages and other sums in connection with ft contract for metalling the Ngawhakarau road, was continued. Counsel for tho plaintiiLi addressed the jury on tho facts of the case and ! called I \Ym. Milvcrton, manager for the firm, ! whose evidence covered the allegations j contained in the statement of claim pubi Hshed yesterday. He added that a conI tributing cause of tho delay in addition 'to the interference with the crown of | the road by Cooksley, one of tho Coun- ] cil'p contractors, was the practical break- : down of the traction engines used by ! plaintiff owing to chemical cr mineral t j qualities in the water available for th.» I j boilersi which clogged tho valves of the > ! engines. This rc&uited in several stop- | ; pages and constant cleansing of the j ! valves wan the only remedy. Sever*!. I ■ about nine, teams ci drays were put on j | by witness at the request of the Council j ; in order to keep the work up, and these j j drays were at work when tho contract- j | was terminated by the defendants. . | Witness stated that despite all adverse I ! circumstanced he had practically broken j ! the back of the work when it was taken - ' from him. Defendants had line , | v/eather for their work of completion j hut their expenditure on contracts Nov. > | and :5 ran tip to Is :U1 per yard as . ! against witness' price of 2s 8d per yard, i | li cost the defendants £300 odd to ! finish No. 1 contract whereas witness, with his engines and drays could have done it for .€192. No 1 contract was within twelve days of completion when ■ it was taken out of their hands. j If is Honor pointed out that pari nt : the difference in the cost of coin- ' pletion was due to the fact that the i defendants paid higher wages than j the plaintiffs and that witness in hi* ' estimate had not allowed for his cost 'of supervision which represented one ' j man's wages. Counsel rejoined thai | trie defendants had no right to charge jthem with more wages than they j (plaintiffs) could get the work done for, and defendants also took a lot more time to finish the work than plaintiffs would. Witness, continuing, said that to have, cost what they did the drays employed ! by the Council must have put in time | somewhere ; they wero not working a!t ' i the time. Cross-examined, witness said thai shortage of trucks delayed him at the I commencement of tho work, but the j defendants knew of it before they ! accepted his contract. They had been told of the fact when they asked plaintiff how he expected to work out the contracts. He did not start tho work till Feb, 11th. He had very little experience in metalling contract!?. He had , I taken the work at prices very much ] lower than any ordinary contractor > | would haVe done.