SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8242, 25 March 1907, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

ADJOURNED SITTINGS. The local sittings of the Supreme Court, adjourned from the 9th. inst., were resumed this morning before his "Honour Mr Justice Button. Civil business only remained to be taken. MILVERTON v. IvAIRANGA COUNTY COUNCIL. A NEW TRIAL. Joseph Milverton and Edward Milverton (Mr Myers, with him Mr Cooper) v. the Kairanga County Council (Mr Skerrett, with him Mr Loughnan), a claim tor payment in respect to metalling contracts on the Ngawhakarua Road and Foxton Line. The first hearing of the case was at the sittings last year, when the plaintiffs got a verdict for £576. The defendant Council appealed for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Plaintiffs opposed the appeal, but judgment went against them and subsequently the motion for a new trial was granted. The following jury was empanelled: —H. Brougham (foreman), J. H. W. Rice, W. Purser, R. H. Eyre, J. M. Collins, C- A. Hhortt, M. T. Graham, F. Brioe, G. Pike. The panel then being exhausted, counsel agreed to accept a jury of ton rather than make up the number from among the spectators. The statement of claim and delenee put in showed that the plaintiffs were contractors who undertook three contracts with the defendant Council for the metalling of certain roads. The agreements were made in December, 1802, and the work was nil to be completed by March 31st, 1903. Bad weather prevented the rapid carrying out of the works, and defendants extended the time for completion and allowed operations to be suspended for a while during the winter months. On October 22nd, 1903, the plaintiffs were called upon to recommence, failing which the Council would take the jobs over and do them at tlve Milverton's expense. The latter made another start on November 26tli, saying that the state of the roads had prevented them resuming oarlier. The rate of progress made did not satisfy the Council. which gave the plaintiffs written notice that, unless an increased amount of metal were put on, it would take charge of the jobs and complete at plaintiffs' expense. Milverton s took steps to carry the order out, and put on a number of teams to assist the engines previously working. The Council finally took the work -out of plaintiffs' hands on February 2nd. The plaintiffs alleged that they were delayed by the action of the Council itself, and that the work was taken from them just when they were able to cope with it. The claim was for the sum of £570 18s, as value <>f work done plus deposits paid in, with damages in respect to each of the three contracts' aggregating £323 15s 4d. After Mr Myers had gone into the plaintiff's case at some length, a mass of evidence in support was given by a number of witnesses, but was a repetition of that adduced at the previous hearing.