TO DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

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

TO DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

':' CROSS-EXAMINATION OP THE. PLAINTIFF. The Court resumed at 10 o'clock lJfiis " forenoon. ' Leslie Reynolds, tho plaintiff (cross- ' examined by Dr Findlay), continaed ; — He did not remember what extension of : time he recommended to be granted to ' Mr McGregor (the contractor for the dredge) and did not remember what ex- : tension, the Board gave. The total ex--1 tension was four months. The construe-. " tion of the dredge began in Nelson, he should say, about September, 1902, and 1 was completed on July 9th, the following >- year. Mr Lowry came to Nelson to resid& in Nov ember, 1902. His duties wore topass the work and contracts. There was: no work actually other than the plant when Mr Lowry came. : In February, 1903, Mr Lowry was still supervising theconstruction of the plant except when away with witness at Hokitika and Dunedin. In June, 1903, Mr Lowry left Nelson finally. Witness recollected his letter of May, 1901, in which he stated what ho was prepared to do and what he would charge. He intended to supply .full detailed plans and specifications for contract; purposes and the plant. He also intended to supply sufficient plans to enable him to carry the work through by day labour. Before May Ist, 1901, hedefinitely understood from* the Board thatthe work was to be done by day labour.. , Before May Ist he was uot present at any meeting of the Board. It had been definitely understood witb Messrs Graham,. Trask, Webster, and Hanby that the* work was to be done by day labour. Hehad had con venations with Mr Graham about procui-ing a second-hand dredge*. There was an idea that a second-hand dredge could be procured' in Australia* The dredge cost _13,285, or within .£9OOO of the total spent in plant. If he had obtained a second-hand dredge in Australia ne would have still expected the .£14.50. Ho did not succeed in getting a second-hand dredge. There was no second hand dredge to be procured. Inquiries were made, but nothing definite was done. He did not design th*? cranes, butthey were got through the contractor, Mr Anderson of Christchurch. Did nofc show the Board tbe crane catalogue, and did not attempt to design the cranes, which cost .£2430. Did not design tho tug Gordon, which cost .£7OO. The locomotive was also procured, and for it he did 1 not prepare designs. It cost .£4OO. The cranes were included in the £22,000 for plant. The tug Gordon and the locomotive were also included. There was othe* plant he did not design, and that came- to* „300Q.0r £4000. On the ,24000 he ojfeimed to bo paid for supervision. Hej would! not have made any charge for a_iiiionaß plans if he had carried out the work himself. If the plans were prepared for day labour purposes the assistance of an engineer would be required so as to prepare* further sketch and other plans. .If t__ plans and specifications were carried oufc by contract the contractor* could carry out the work without tha assistance of another engineer. Was not present on. ' the 6fch May. 1903, when the Board decided to carry out the work by contract He was in Nelson at the time, bowever" Dfd not remember having conrersaKons with individual members of the Board as to the change of policy. Up to thetime of the meeting of the Board all tie plans and specifications had been sent __. Between Bth May and June 3rd witness, never informed the Board that he wa_ going to make a charge tor the work he was domg. Did no* act discourteously > to the Board and se_d in a bill early & Aug-nst. The Board wrote asking him to send in any claims he had on the Boaru. i but he was. in Australia when the letfanr • was receive* "When he got back be- - tound every Hung upside down, and -after I going into the figures of the matter he- ■ put TO hia claim. His claim of $ 1*307 was ■ upon a rate. He was possibly a_ » expert. His rate was based 1 upon the ' completion of the amount of work mll eluded in the contrast works for 500 I The rate was about 2.J per cent ' His Honour here pointed out that 2£ ) per cen£ would make, it £80 oyer thee amoj^tiß mentioned. i v . Witness said ho cons idorcd the treat- - ment meted o\„ to him by tbe Boar« 3 3 was tantaniwmt to a dismissal. It was* i. quite usaal for a public body to go* aa outp«te engineer to, review the work o_ i their engineer and K ive an opinion, lit 1 .was proper that an£ amendment ie! ' :™*-W<ted by the outside £3n*_ ». shond be agreed to on condition «£? the. engineer and^the consultants agreS o* called m a consultant case, and had degreed severely f rom another enSe JL He kne * Mr Noble Anderson, who : jasjngmeerfpr the Dunedin dr^ge. He was engaged on it now. Witness '„£_ J one of a board of inquiry.of spuria! <£j perts to report on that soheme/ffis *!_> Anderson a) was condemned but. the . work was still going on, a*dwit-nea-j amendment was not; accepted. T__ - o»her members of the Board sitting witb bim were Mr Cutler, of Sydney, _nd Mr John^Kodgers, lato engineer for tb_"D u - edm City Council. Mr Noble Anderson . was given an opjuvrtunifcy of discossiner ■ with the Boasd of Inquiry, xrhivh he did. • Saw no objection to tha fNelson Harbour I SfWM K M *m*®*K engineersI | Knew that Mr Mestayer was called in ti> RiVe a drainage scheme, for Nelson-. Witness had also sent m a sememe, be* ' _fo_ . ho known Mr Mestayerwae appointed __ I would have rafused 'to'SpSETSf^ l omv^ about^^isp.atY week oa£ .' ■;^ a -«*^**«-of draina^Sr ' l>^# Si** ihe -rfth. K - Jjpo^ Jrasvmg the attention of M» Key- " eSS-i? *be .discrepancy between fab, ► estimate and the estimate of lb* consul*. i »ng engineers, and asking himtoffire. , I soma assurance that there waa. sSmei stability in his (Mr Reynolds') estimate i Mr Bell also road ihe telegram aakuag Mr i Reynolds if he would Carry « Q fc V scheme &» amended by tb(_ eonsultin*?enguwdrs and the ether resolution w_er_ , , »he Board agreed to.carry. out nojitioß^ of the work „y day labour and ffi J by contract. • ■ * vu " w-udi^mt to «et any tendeS^ W^line to ; ftho GoverninS *tZ% from the Government. He U^arSien^rt W^^v^-'^^H^ugbfcit might Ss?f> bl ?-\ crth W. K wis simply _ sprat to catoJ?,a i -i*is'erel. When he*ias> ™,«alieaup<>n.inMay, 1903, to supply WlAe^plnha and specifications he-scmyhk •tp^l advico. by Dr Findlay witness saidi that some eighteen months after he was-, engaged he estimated that the gross cost, of the Nelson Harbour works would b*:.£3.5,000 and Abe- net cost wbfci_ wpu\d he after, the eale of thap]_ n fe. §&s,e soon ths after ho increased the estimate of the plant by £2S££k That l was in July, 3902. 'fU witness then said that his estimate on the 23rd October was £22,600 for plant. When be designed the dredge

July ffie-Bdajrd was continually worrying 'fhiin to getrfche -work done. 1 His second - esfa'inatefo-c the dredge was .-813,200.. it being -fiil-OO above what it was estimated '. itwouldfcost in the first place. Became -to Nelson and explained to the* Bo *™ that although.the estimate was exceeded. • fey 41200 his advised them to accept it ; He promised to pull it up on the other - pirt of the plant which/was to be done. fThis concluded the evidence of the Plaintiff.