THE SUMMING UP.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVIIID, Issue 56, 11 March 1904, Page 2

THE SUMMING UP.

His Honour, in summing up, said the case had taken a long hearing, but ho would show that the issues were simply and he proposed to bring tho Phia§ fc^qa' before tta jury. The^p. vrerjfaii fotto, ws • whsV&'h§ ©n^tjloO, to rroy^ oy - ? •■"^t*J had WW~g ro do with any question of dismissal, nor had they to do with any ohargo against any me tuber a of Vhe. Board. The question wasi whether. Mr Reynolds wqs entitled to bo paid for wjrfc done. There were two branches of the ca3e.ll one of plau3 and another, of specifications. The agreement was for 5 per cent on iJ58,000, which amounted fro .£2900. Tho question arose whether this agreement included thja preparation of tho second set of plans. ■ Th,e plaintiff said ib meant supplying all matter to tho contractor, or preparing rough plans enabl'n<? the work to be carried out by a skilled foreman. The ti of the Jetter of Agreement, the plaiutiff contended. included one or other of thesei not " bo,th. The "Board said pay-i Sent aJLr^ady made for both, id th,e detailed working plans include all ? . Th,ero was a difforence of opjinion among the members of the Board as, to whether the work should he. dope by day labour or by contract. -fnoro was this fact, and that w«W iv, August. 1902^ they can^e to, nq result aa to whether there, should be working plans f ;>r day labour or contract planß. At that timo they «4me fa the conolusiion tbafe the cut was to be 4oq« liy- 4ay laboar. The way the other work was to he done was not decided on. The plant, dredge, biirges, punts, oranes, and trucks were to be supplied by oontraot, The only result of the August moating Was that the dredging was to bo dona by day labour. He could not find any resolution on the minutes but that the out was to be done by day lobour. For actual work the sum to be allowed., would amount to £251 14s, and it was for' the jury to say whether an extra amount should be allowed for tho eocond set of plans. The plaintiff svas not suing for loss through delay, but • was only suing for the actual work he did, and it was for tho jury to say whether he could claim this extra 1 per cont. Tho only delay that could be charged was that ; the Board had not gone on with the construction of the moles before they started dredging, The question they had to consider was, is Mr Reynolds entitled to nharge anything for the duplicate plans ? Did fchfl letter of agreement of the Ist of ' May include everything ? If they

for the alteration ii'tfopl^* l^^ doable set of plans then the qnesßon rested as to what amount bp should W? •. ceive. The suggestion of 1-J per cerfc by , jtr Fitzgerald ho thought was reasonable. : .■ The next question was with regard to ' supervision. The plaintiff said he had " supervised the' work of constructing plant, which amounted in value to £18,591 9a. The balance of the value of the work amounted, in round numbers, to .£3550, which plaintiff did not super • vise. Chat consisted of a tug, a crane, and a locomotive, which were bought. The jury had only to consider the amount for work the plaintiff had dono. He was to be paid 2£ per cent for supervising work to cost £58,000. Ho did some supervision, to > the amount of work already mentioned. He supervised £18,591 Mortb. of work. Now, what was a fair' charge for that supervision? Plaintiff was to get 2} per cent, and Messrs Bishop and Konnthwaite considered the work waa worth 34 per cent. It was entirely for the jury to say whether 2£ per cent. was a fair charge. The only other claim was £98 for Mr Lowry's services, who was kept in Nelson acting for th 6 plaintiff during his absence. His Honours thottgb.fr ■■; that this claim could bo. thrown; out. Referring to the expert evidence regarding the skip barges, His Honour said that before anything could he proved against their design it must be. proved that >the designer was incompetent, or that there had been negligence on his part. In conclusion, His Honour pointed out to the jury that even if they thought that tho plaintiff's scheme was not the best scheme, nor yet the second-best scheme, but yet a good scheme, then they ought not to find damages against the plaintiff; His Honour asked the jury to throw" aside all side issues and consider the three points he had mentioned, and say what they thought "a fair thing from man to man." The jury then retired to consider their verdict.