THE HARBOUR BOARD & ITS LATE ENGINEER.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 55, 10 March 1904, Page 2

THE HARBOUR BOARD & ITS LATE ENGINEER.

THE SUPREME COIJRT ACTION- ; A.t the Supreme Court yesterday th< action brought by Leslie H. Jleynolds late engineer, against the Nelson Harbou: Board to recover £1651 10s, for pl^m and specifications and for supervisioi &c, in connection with the harbour im , provcment works, was continued after wi went to press before tho Chief Justice. Mr H. D. Bell, with him Mr C. Y. Fel (instructed by Fell and Atkinson) appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr Findlay with him Mr C. J. Harley (instructed bj Adams and Kingdon; acted a3 counseJ for the defendant. I The following are special jurors hearing the suit :— J. M. Campbell. C. J. Bird, P i Bond. T. Pettit, C. D. Beatsou, E. Webley W. H. Hodson, J. G. Littlejohn, C, H i Clark, W. W. Livesey, H. G. Heyward W. Douglaß. ! Leslie Reynolds, A.M.l.C.E. theplamtiS l continued his evidence. He said tha l -reliminary to cutting through th. i Boulder Bank other work could to , done In December 1902, he ap plied to tho Board to appoint t foreman of works about the middl< ; of January. The foreman s dutie: were to take charge of the men ani receive instructions from him. m< Board did not appoint a foremai ' of works, and no explanation wa. • given to him by the Board with re ' RP.rd to tho delay. On the 2nd o i March 1903, he did not extend tin • time to the dredge. He remern . bored the contractor coming tc Nelson several times. He saw thi contractor on every occasion, ant never recoived ariv communicatioi from Mr Graham 'on the subject. The dredge was delivered tuli.v three months late, and he had nol granted an extension of time to the contractor. He did not know whether the Board granted it or not. Ho did not think he was asked to recommend an extension, but was asked if he would make an extension. Ho recommended the contractor one extension, but not a further extension.. The drodge was, he believed, delayed for the want of boiler plates. Except the prelimary work he had other important work to do, and wanted hia foreman to fix up all the work that they had since done. In August he was aware that the work was to be done by day labour. He was to carry out the work and propared designs for the work to be carried out by day labour. One of the sections in these plans would be similar to. contract work, and the others not. These were for the purpose of directing the Board's foreman and workmen and for his own guidance. Apart from these designs he schemed and made out plans for day labour. These were the record and scheming of plans which he thought out for himself and his own officers. Further plans would have been put in as the work went along. He did all that was necescessary as the Board's engineer to cut through the Boulder Bank with that plant. The work done by him could not be doiie by any clerk, aud he spent four months on the work. During the time ho was away Mc Lowry, his assistant, represented him. He knew on May 6th that the Board had changed its policy, and he was here in Nelson. . When he received the order to prepare plans for the work to be carried out by contract he wrote stating that the Board would have to pay for^the extra work.. The third set of plans were handed in. The designß were entirely his own. Witness and three of his staff — draughtsmen— prepared the designs. Had he not had previous knowledge he could not have done the work in the time he did. They were working from the 14th June to the £ Ist July from .9 a.m, to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. and after at night. It would not have been necessary for him or his assistant (Mr Lowry) to spend montbis in Nelson t; prepare the plans of the work tb be : done by tender. • He was ;not consulted before the plans were submitted to consulting engineers. He was not asked to suggest anything, and was not given an opportunity of doing anvthiu .<* with the consulting enginoers. Witness said he was out of the colony when the services of the consulting engineers wore procured. Hb estimated that it would cost 6d per cubic yard to do the dredging at the Boulder Bank. The consulting engineers were charging Is 7d, and he thought they were making a mistake somewhere. He was not in the habit of jumping at conclusions, and was satisfied that he had made no mistake. Tho work could have been carried out at the price, be estimated. He was quite satisfied about that. In the estimate of the cost he did not addhißOwn commission. Of Course it was understood at first. Witness was paid ,£6OO and subsequently another .£BSO on supplying plans and details and having in his possession certain work. He was paid nothing for the supervision or the attendance of Mr Lowry at irTelson. Was paid nothing for the tender plans or specifications. To Dr Findlay ■ He expressed himself himself with confidence as to the accuracy of his estimates and did not jump at conclusions. It was not true that his estimates were frequently wrong. He constructed the Earnscleugh dredge, but did not remember ho w much his estimate was out. It was not twice as much. He was not admitted as a member of tho Institute of Civil Engineers. Professional jealousy and not professional experience, he thought, kept him out. Had been practising as an engineer for thirteen years. The Institute to which he belonged was in London. In 1899 he was asked to make a report to the Government. To qualify himself for that position he had to survey tho harbour and take soundings. It took throe months, from memory. He had to obtain all t% data to to frame a preliminary repoffc ac-ootn-paniod by plan. Had not a oqdv with him. This pjaj! showed a channel through the goulder Bank, the soundings, currents, and works outlined in the report. Ho had estimated the work would cost ,£58,000, and went into the matter sufficiently to enable him to >&. pulate tho sum. It took hjm fou;-. months to make his calculations. He did not show cross section*' op the plans. The Government paid him 100 guineas for tbis work. The scheme was his own pergonal design, and was not a borrowed one. He would do the same work again for 100 guineas. If asked to prepare specifications for a dredge he would assume the work would have to be dpae by tender. Hy had, unders tppd that the Board intended construction by day labour. He wja^ never instructed officially by the Board to carry out his plans except by day labour. [The detailed working plans prepared after August were handod m.] The work he did after June and after August, 1902, was on the assump^ tion that the work was to be done by day labour. With the information he had when he got tho £1450 he could not say how much he would charge for tho day labour plans. Supposing Mv Graham had stated in December, 1901, that the Board intended carrying out tho work by contract ho would have charged fully 31. p er cent for preparing plans for the plant and 2.J per cent for preparing pla US and specifications ready to place ia the hands of the contractor. For supervising the whole work his charg^ bo 2+ par cent. Assuming %a,i the Board had done work bj- tender, and ho was also required X, l^txfe plant plans, his fee for all Diana and supervision would be in stead of .£2900 Did not ' menti^ny," thing about contract or day labour in his letter of January 7th, 1902, as it was his intention to discuss the matter with t& members of the Board when ho $&,?& jNelson. He had not spoke* t? th^Board on the subject thb&tf' We" of ttS2 M'^sS-WI Plana for the plant, and fta* was^never anything said about carrying the work out by contract with the Board's plant. Mr Graham told him to go on with the plans on the assumption that it was to be done by day labor-/ Ho was^ going to charg* 5 pavcent^ tho work for preparing plans and SU pervmng by day l^hoiur. He would have Charged ,a| per oont for tho plans alone Witness "said if he had been askod to prepare the plans of the whole work, inclusive of any plant, so as to hand it over to the contractor, he v»ould havo charged 6 per cent on the whole cost of tho wor!?. In his letter of 31st December, 19Q^ fye. said he would come up and 1 hii**^ oint the matter of day labour w\t^ the. Btoard. In April and June I*-,** <&\w up and discussed the qn^sfcirun about day labour with individual members Whon ho delivered the plans in June, 1902, and ho became entitled to £1450, ho did not say officially to the Board that the plans we£<x for day labour only. He told somji osVha mombora indindually. ' l*a weu*bera be told were Messrs CUa'tutm, We_»ter, and Hanbv. The v waa%.he prepared for contract were worth .£1(307. He was engaged on the plans for five weeks. The whole time of his office was occupied with the contract plans. He -refused to monliaa I what he paid his draughtsmen ior thoir I labour, and he objected. .fo. -say what he put down for In,-; $-#-* work. He might beable

r to allow'acompetent draughtsman to preJ pare the plans for contractors if he (witness) first instructed him properly. H e could not leave a competent draughtsman to do ifc by himself without such instruction. He gave the whole of his time to preparing the plans, DrFindlay : You charge the Govern* ment 100 guineas for four months work c and the Harbour Board .£IOO7 for five i, weeks' work ! ' r His Honor at' this stage interposed to B point out that an engineer or other pro* 1 fessional man, such as a lawyer, a doctor, . a valuer, etc, did not charge by time, but ■_ for bis work as a whole. .After some further argument on this I point, Witness continued. He said he considered he was entitled to receive .£SO a j month fi'om June to I7th October, 1903, I as progress payments according to agreement from the time : construction r of the plant began. Never made any ' application for the (progress payments, , and never received any from June 2nd, :, the date of the commencement of tho i, construction of tbe plant right up to October 17. lt was to save friction tiab f, he did not trouble about the .£SO pro**t gress payment. He did not know that o it was not possible to complete the plant o and work ia two years. He then applied i- foe his .£SO a month to begin from tho a j commencement of the construction of the « plant, and the Board told him that it con- ■ sidered that construction wouldcommenee with the cutting of the bank, and not n with the construction, of the plant. He s had by no means abandoned lub claim to / _ progress payments of £50 a month as / f from the commencement of the construce tion of the plant. It was possible that if - he had been so paid the fees coming to 0 him might have been exhausted long beR fore the conclusion of tho work, presum--1 ing delays arose. 1 It being now 5.40 p.ra„ the Court atl- • journed till 10 a.m. next day.