Feilding Page.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2598, 17 March 1923, Page 2

Feilding Page.

POLO. YESTERDAY’S GAMES.

HAWKE’S BAY’S RUNAWAY WIN.

RANGFTIKEI B’s SUCCESS. SAVILLB CUP. RANGITIKEI a V. HAWKE’S RAY. The second day's play at Feilding yesterday was between the above teams for the Savile Gup I Hawke’s Bay proved too much for Rangitikei A, their combination and head work being much superior, and in most of the spells their ponies were the more speedy. Hamish Wilson was a tower of strength for Rangitikei. The other Rangitikei players were undoubtedly good, but they lacked the necessary combination. The teams were;— Hawke’s Bay.—l J. Lyons, 2 O. Nelson, 3 F. McKenzie, 4 E. Nairn. Rangitikei A. —1 H. Wilson, R. Wilson, 3 R. L. Levin, 4 W. Scott.

Immediately after commencement, Hawke’s Bay attacked, and Lyons scored a fine goal. Hawke’s Bay 1, Rangitikei 0. Hawke’s Bay attacked strongly, but Levin saved. Hawke’s Bay came again, and Nelson scored. —Hawke’s Bay 2, Rangitikei 0. H. Wilson mad a good run, but could not get the ball straight, and a behind resulted. Scott had another shot but just missed. McKenzie made a good run, taut Levin came to the rescue. O. Nelson again scored from before the posts.—-Hawke’s Bay 3, Rangitikei 0. Second spell.—Hawke’s Bay carried the ball behind, and continued their attack, when, thanks to McKenzie another goal was notched.—Hawke’s Bay 4, Rangitikei 0. Scott did some good riding out and Rangitikei got a behind. Rangitikei took the ball to a few feet from the goal but it lay there dead till Hawke’s Bay relieved. Howke’s Bay had a shot from a cross, without result, and Rangitikei cleared, only to be attacked and Lyons scored. —Hawke’s Bay 5, Rangitikei 0.

Third spell.—On resuming Hawke’s Bay were awarded a free hit, but their ball went behind. Some good fast play ensued, which resulted in Rangitikei getting a behind. Hawke’s Bay set up a strong attack, but the defence was sound, Rangitikei having the fastest ponies in this spell. Scott made a good run, but missed when near the goal. Fourth spell.—Rangitikei had a free hit for Hawke’s Bay hitting a behind on their own goal. Hamish Wilson made a fine run, but his work was not finished. Rangitikei still attacked, but Nelson again saved. Rangitikei put the ball behind their own line, giving Hawke’s Bay a free hit, but O. H. Wilson saved. H. Wilson carried the ball down the field, but Hawke’s Bay turned the tables. Nelson scoring.—Hawke’s Bay 6, Rangitikei 0. Play was up and down the the field. McKenzie had a good chance but his shot lacked direction. Fifth spell.—Hawke’s Bay were soon attacking, but good play by Levin and H. Wilson cleared Rangitikei’s line. Rangi attacked, and the ball only missed the goal by a foot. Hawke’s Bay, with a good concerted run, carried the ball up to the post, and McKenzie scored. —Hawke’s Bay 7, Rangitikei 0. Hamish Wilson, making a magnificent run then scored Rangitikei first goal.—Hawke’s Bay 7, Rangitikei 1. H. Wilson, who was playing a particularly tine game, made some good runs. Just on the whistle O. Nelson got away and scored. — Hawke’s Bay 8, Rangitikei 1.

Sixth spell.—Hawke's Bay, by concerted action, took the ball up field, Lyons carrying it on and Nelson putting it through.—Hawke’s Bay 9, Rangitikei 1. Hawke’s Bay again forcing the pace, Lyons scored.- —- Hawke’s Bay 10, Rangitikei 1. This

spell proved very fast, with Hawke's Bay still attacking 1 . At this stage the ball was lost, one of the ponies trampling 1 it into the ground. Rangitikei, by good play, had two shots but only got behind. At the third attempt Scott put the ball through,— Hawke’s Bay 10, Kangitikei 2. Last spell.—Hawke’s Bay made a

good attack, but Rangitikei countered, and kept. Hawke’s Bay on the defensive. Scott had a shot, but it lacked power. Rangitikei. by good play, took the ball up field, and Levin had a back-hand shot, which hit the post. Rangitikei then kept up the attack until call of time, the game ending,— Hawke’s Bay 10, Rangitikei 2

HANDICAP CUP. The teams for the first match for the Handicap Cup were:— Rangitikei B. —R. McKelvie, K. Dalrymple, R. Dalrymple. R. Scott Te Awamutu: Hume, D. Kay, F. Taylor, W. G. Kay. Play in this match was not of such a high standard as the previous one, R. McKelvie being the best of the Rangitikei side, and Taylor of To Awamutu. W. Kay was not playing up to his usual form. Rangitikei B received 15 goals, and Te Awamutu 'J goals. On commencement Te Awamutu yushed the ball to the posts and scored —Rangitikei 38, Te Awamutu 10. Te Awamutu still attacked and got two behind In quick succession. R. Scott saved, and Rangitikei attacked, but W. Kay saved. Te Awamutu took a hand in attacking, but W. Scott made a good save. Second spell.—Rangitikei attacked, but the full-back, by two good strokes carried the ball to Rangitikei's territory. only to be sent back, Scott and McKelvie carrying the ball and R. Scott scoring.—Rangitikei IG, Te Awamutu 10. Immediately after Rangitikei worked the ball well up, and K, Dalrymple scored.—Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 10. Rangitikei kept on attacking, and Scott had another shot, but the ball had not enough pace. Third spell.—Rangitikei Were playing with great combination and having the fastest ponies dominated this spell. Towards the end Te Awamutu attacked and got a behind. McKelvie and Scott cleared the lines, and Dalrymple carried on, but W. Kay saved /and Te Awamutu attacked, W. Kay scoring. —Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 11. Fourth spell.—Rangitikei got the behind, thanks to McKelvie, and

The Wellesley Club (Wellington) are sending a team to Feilding to.day to play a cricket match with the Feilding Club. The game will commence early, in order to allow the visitors to attend the polo gymkhana.

FEILDING COURT. BEFORE MR R. W. WATSON, S.M. COLLINS V. FEILDING BOROUGH COUNCIL. This was a claim under contract, Mr Graham for the plaintiff and Mr Elliott for defendants. On the resumption of the case, Mr S. Jickell, of Palmerston North, was called for plaintiff. He said he ha« perused the specifications of the contract for the three bridges in the case, and had also visited them. Under these specifications it was laid down that the plaintiff was to fill up, and metal between the wing w’alls of the bridge from the abutments to the end of the top of wing wall, and form the level Of the bridge to the old roadway, and this was demonstrated in the plan. What plaintiff did was an extension of this. He filled really more than he was required to under the contract. What the engineer asked for in the extra work done was not, in witness’s opinion, called for in the specifications. If this additional work was required, it should have been shown on the plan. Witness would have done it so, and there there would have been no dispute. The wing walls in the other two bridges under the contract were not in the same shape as the Duke Street one. There should actually have been some sketch or plan to show exactly what was wanted.

To Mr Elliott: The specifications were quite clear. To the Magistrate: It was not the duty of the contractor to state that the specifications were ridiculous, but to carry them out. As the specifications showed, the road would not have been unstable. To Mr Elliott: There had been an omission in the plan, and the extra work done was extra, and not new. He did not think clause 29 threw any light on the other clauses. To the Magistrate: Clause 14 overrode clause 29, and clause 14 could not apply to Duke Street bridge. Re-examined: The fillings shown on the plan did not include any of the extra Work done by Collins. Mr Elliott applied for a non-suit on the grounds that there were no merits for the action. The application was based on section 353 of the Municipal Corporations Act. A sub-section provided that action must be commenced within six months of the’ completion Of the work. He said that instructions were given by the engineer on 4th July, 1922, taut it was only on the 26th January of this year that a claim was made. Commencement of action should be by plaint note. Mr Graham, in reply, contended that notice was given. If the engineer gave the plaintiff his instructions on 4th July, and assuming that the action must be commenced within six months of the work being done, no cause of action came until the work was done, and the work was not finished until August 16th. The non-suit point was reserved. Chas. R. Hubbard, engineer to the anßorough Council, explained the plan, and said he had heard Mr Jickell’s evidence, but he was evidently under a misapprehension. There Borough Council, explained the tie Streets outside the wing marks, and no question had been raised by Collins. Collins was asked to put in a batter at Norwich street and was paid for it. Witness’s instructions to Collins were verbal. To the Magistrate; Plaintiff protested that what I required was riot in the contract. Cross-examined: Collins said he did not consider this work as part of the contract. If it was extra work the conditions of contract stated that written notice of this work must be given to the contractor. Collins stated that ho would do the wore, and the matter of payment for same was left open. Witness was questioned as to the specifications for Beattie Street very closoly. To the Magistrate: It is necessary that specifications should be very explicit, so that the contractor should know exactly what was required of him. To Mr Graham: The work carried out by Collins made the approaches more sightly. To Mr Graham: It is not possible to draw specifications covering all details without variations, especially in bridge work. Witness said he was a mechanical engineer, and an Associate Member of the British Institute. and the Borough electrical engineer. He had previous experience in bridge work, but this was the first set of specifications he had drawn.

Te Awamutu had a free hit for an infringement of the rules, but Rangitikei cleared by goqd combined play. R. McKelvie had a spill, but no damage was done. Te Awamutu put in an attack, but Scott saved by two good strokes, and McKelvie followed up, but missed his last stroke. Te Awamutu attacked but Dalrymple saved and the spell ended without any score. Fifth Spell.—Te Awamutu rushed the goal on resuming, but it went behind. , Te Awamutu continued to press and W. Kay scored.—Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 12. Te Awamutu were improving and Hume got behind after a fine run. Te Awamutu again pressed and Hume had a high shot which the wind carried away from the posts. An attack by Rangitikei, headed by McKenzie, resulted in a behind.

Sixth spell.— Te Awamutu carried the ball behind, but Rangitikei cleared and attacked, getting a similar result. Te Awamutu, thanks to Hume, carried the ball well up, but an infringement gave Rangitikei a free hit, which went out and was returned by Te Awamutu, W. Kay scoring.—Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 33. Te Awamutu again attacked, and W. Kay by a magnificent run the whole length of the field, scored.—Kangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 14. W. Kay carried the ball up to the posts, and W. Hume scoren an easy goal.—Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 15.

For the last spell, Rangitikei played up and down the field, Te Awamutu getting a behind through a Rangitikei player. Te Awamutu’s strike at goal was resultless. Te Awamutu were straining every nerve to score, but only got behinds. After several tries, Taylor secured, and with two fine strokes scored, and the game resulted, —Rangitikei 17, Te Awamutu 16. Mr W. Bean Stewart acted as umpire.