LOANE AND CO. V. RAGLAN COUNTY COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8354, 6 September 1890, Page 5

LOANE AND CO. V. RAGLAN COUNTY COUNCIL.

Tnis case, of considerable local interest, came before Messrs. Wallis and Thomson, Justices of the Peace, in the Raglan Courthouse, on August 25. Mr. Dyer conducted the case for the plaintiffs, Loane and Co., and Mr. O'Neil appeared on behalf of the County Council. Charles Henry Moon, one of the plaintiffs, and residing at Waitetunu, deposed that he recollected taking contracts for Nob. 4, 5, 6, and 7 sections of the road in different contracts. The maintenance of contract 4 for 12 months, for the price of £7 10», was kept in proper repair, the watertables kept open, ami the specifications complied with. He had general supervision of this section of the road, and received no complaint from Mr. Sandes, the engineer, except one complaint per letter. It was rectified. The Mountain Road from foot to foot was carried out and the water-tables kept clear. He complied with the specifications as to the maintenance on contract No. 6. The same witn respect to contract No. 7. Total of money due to plaintiffs on those works was £18 ]ss. He claimed for extras £1 15s for a stone culvert which was done, £1 for pipes, 10s for clearing scrub, and 18a 9(1 on freight and cartage of lime. He abridged the extras in order to bring the claim under the jurisdiction of the Court. The first intimation they had from Mr. Sandes of non-fulfilment of the contract was on February '25, of this year. The engineer was over the road last November, and pointed out a slip, which was removed. They were not paid quarterly for maintenance, and received no intimation from Mr. Sandesthat he was dissatisfied with the work. He did not say that ho would grant no certificate till plaintiffs had put the matter right. Oil August '28 all work was passed. He did not state that the work was badly performed. The sum claimed was still owing. To Mr. O'Neill witness stated that they received no certificates from the engineer to show that £18 15s was due oil the works, and £4 8s !)d for extras. He applied for the certificate in Hamilton last June. Mr. Sandes said he would look into his books. He was not aware that Gibbison had signed a receipt for £8 Is, in full payment of the whole amount. He had no power to give Gibbison authority to sign the receipt. R. Loane and G. Moon were the men appointed by the company to receive payments and sign receipts. The sum of £>S Is was not divided. G. Moon held it still, pending the full payment being made. Mr. W. Gibbison, contractor, residing at Kauroa, deposed that the signature on the receipt was his. Mr. Somerset called him into the County Council Chambers and said there was money waiting for the party. Witness did not recollect him reading the receipt. He was under the impression that he was signing for £8 Is only. Cross-examined by O'Neil : He did not consider that he was precluding his mates from all hopes of obtaining the remainder of the sum owing. He gave the money to his mates, and they refused to take it. Mr. G. Moon, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence corroborative of that of the first witness. Arthur Moon, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that the work had been completed satisfactorily in compliance with the specifications. Arthur Sutton, mailcarrier, deposed that lie had been on the roads four days a week, and that they had been kept in very good condition. He had noticed a slip on the mountain road, but it had been removed. He could not say anything as to the road from November to December. Clement Newton gave similar evidence. Peter Nicholson, labourer, deposed that the works to the end of April, 188!), had been done in a satisfactory manner. He started working for the present contractors on the 19th January, 1890, and the road was then in a fair state. He had seen the slips, but could not say. how long they had been down. It took four men four days to remove them. Mr. John Douglas and Mr. William John Henry both gave strong corroborative evidence re the state of the roads during December and January, 1889-90. For the defence Mr. Somerset, clerk of the Raglan County Council, deposed that he knew the contracts Nos. 4, 5, and 7. He had been over No. 7. He made a complaint re a slip which was on that road for three months. He never paid money unless the engineer gave his certificate. Mr. Mole, the present contractor for the Raglan- road, deposed that the road was not in a very good state when he took it over. There were two slips on the mountain, and, judging from appearance, they had been down some time. He saw them first on the. 16th of January, 1890. He had put in a claim for »0 days' work for these extras, He could not say anything about road previous to the 16th January, 1890. Mr. Alfred Collins, who is in company with Mr. Mole for the Raglan- road contract, gave similar evidence. Mr. Thomas Goodman Sandes, engineer for the Raglan County Council, deposed that the contracts in the case of 4, 5, and 7 bad not been carried rvt, according to specification. He stopped £18 15s for faulty work. They were not entitled to the certificate for extras. He positively swore that he told the contractors during January that they had not carried out their work satisfactorily, and that he would not pay them. The first time he was over the road after the termination of the contract was about the 12th or 13th of l inuary, 1890. The magistrates gave judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, with costs. Mr. O'Neil gave notice of appeal upon two —firstly, because the contractors had not obtained the engineer's certificate; secondly, on the grounds that the action of the person signing the receipt was ratified by his mates.—[Own Correspondent.]