DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1128, 26 June 1867, Page 6

DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

(Before His Honor Judge Beckham.) DUNLOP V. GALLAtTGHER. TUB ONEHUNGA RAILWAY. The adjourned sitting of the District Court was held yesterday, when this important case was proceeded witli. Mr. Bcveridge for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for the defendants. Mr. Brookfield re-called James Gallauglier, who deposed: The measurement for which Duulop was paid was 2244 yards. I was paid for 2466 cubic yards. The difference was 222 yards of cxcavation, which we did ourselves (working plan produced.) We all worked by this plan. Tho extra work was partly in No. 1; it began in that cutting. Dunlop excavated Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. I had to take 6 inches off No. 5 myself. No. 6he did not do at all, 1 did it; and the western end of No. 7. He did No. 8, and a portion of No. 9. I did 200 feet at the western end of this, making altogether 222 cubic yards. Cross-examined : Tho work did not come under Dunlop's agreement. A portion of it did come under Dunlop's agreement. Tho work I performed would come under the original. The agreement produced is not like the original copy. His Honor : "Why you have certified that it is a true copy. Witness : A true copy of something, not of the original agreement. Re-examined: The agreement produced was a true copy, but another was substituted. Henry Brierly, examined by Mr. Brookfield, deposed, that he was a contractor on. the Onehunga branch of the Auckland and Drury Railway. When the Daltons measured the works a considerable portion ot the cuttings had been, taken away, and the works were not in the same state as when Dunlop left them. I _was present at an arrangement between plaintiff and defendant in reference to the mode in which No. 1 cutting was to be paid for. Mr. Brookfield was proceeding to ask the witness the nature of the arrangement, when Mr. Beveridge objected to tho question. ! His Honor allowed the objection. Re-examined: Dunlop received his instructions from Gallauglier in my presence ; they were given in reference to the plan produced. Cross-examined: I snw the plan in Dunlop's hand several times, at different times. I won't swear to sis times nor four times. I will swear to twice, not to three times. I cannot swear whether he had it in his hand for half an hour or five minutes. Re-examined by Mr. Brookfield: lie was working by the plan. John Colledge, examined by Mr. Brookfield: The slopes had been altered between the time Dunlop left and tho time the works were measured by the Daltons. Dunlop's orders were to work by the plans, and he had access to them. Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge: Mr. Gallauglier kept the plan, and gave his instructions from it according to the engineer's instructions. I will swear that I have seen the plan in Dunlop's hands more than three times. You arc going beyond the mark when you say four times. The only access he had to the plan was to see it while in Gallaugher's hands. Dunlop had on one occasion to fill up places where he had gone too deep. He may have done so on more than one occasion. Re-examined : Some of the pegs would show the depths of the cutting. James Stewart, examined by Mr. Brookfield, deposed that he was engineer to the Auckland and Drury Railway, and had considerable experience on railways in Scotland. Measured the works on conclusion of the contract in January 1867 (working section produced.) The line, lias not been altered from this plan. The slope on tho side cuttings are most of them half to one, but the solid stone is in many cases perpendicular. The total excavation and cutting was 2466 cubic yards. I arrived at that calculation from the longitudinal section, tho cross-sections, notes of levels made on the ground, and the prismoidal formula). Another mode is to take the mean height and breadth, and multiply by the length. That would not give an accurate result if the sides were irregular, and not on such a line as No. 4 section. Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : The experience I have had on railways lias been in taking parliamentary levels. I was Grst on the Scottish Midland railway. My articles were not completed then. I was subsequently engaged levelling on the Aberdeen railway. I think my articles were completed six months before that. I was engaged measuring on the Decpside railway, and also in Yorkshire. That is my experience generally. (Plans of cro-s sections produced.) That plan is sufficient to enable the contractors to complete the work. The plan is not intended for anyone but a thorough engineer. I could get out quantities, so could Mr. Harding. No working plan was ever made of the line. The curves were set out by the curve book from calculation. This is a new plan which I have learned since I have been in New Zealand. I have not; got a patent for it (original plan produced). This plan is correct (plan produced showing the original level and present level). The deviations as shown in this plan do not exist in the line (copy of parliamentary section produced). The gradients in this and the working plan are not the same in any respect. We Lave power to vary the levels by the standing orders of the House of Commons. The prismoidal formula is the area of the two ends, plus 4 times the mean area, multiplied by half the length. Dunlop did all that was required of him by tlio working section. I cannot say whether Dunlop made any extra cutting or not; lie may have made extra cutting and filled it in again. Re-examined : The prismoidal formula is the only accurate method of measurement. Tho parliamentary plan gives power to enter upon property, cross roads, make embankments, &c. Samuel Harding, examined by Mr. Brookfield : Had upwards of 14 years experience. Had been engaged under Sir John McNeil, and as assistant engineer under the Imperial Government, also as resident engineer and permanent engineer. Was a member also of the Dublin Society, and had been engaged on the Auckland and Drury railway. The levels on the working plan had been adhered to. Never told Dunlop that the levels were wrong. Mr. Gallaugher always had the levels with him. The levels were shown by pegs. Dunlop lias had to go over the work a second time where it was not of the required dimensions. In some places believe the blocks of stone sometimes caused the cuttings to be deeper. Measured the work, and found less than a month ago 2277 yards grossamountfiuished. I amquite surethatthe line has not been deviated from more than two feet. I don't know of any deviation. I will swear that there was no deviation when I left the line. Dunlop was working then. I cannot say whether there was any deviation when Dunlop left. There might be a few inches (plan of cross sections produced.) It is not possible to take minutely correct quantities from this plan. I don't recollect sending for my theodolite to test anything. I never received any complaint from Dunlop. I remember on one occasion finding a peg seven or eight feet out of the line. This was the whole case. The Court adjourned for half au hour. The learned counsel on either side ably addressed the Court at considerable length. His Honor said after the large amount of evidence that had been adduced, the case would require further consideration ; judgment would therefore be reserved until Monday next. The Court rose at 3 p.m.