MILITARY CONTRACT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9614, 21 March 1917, Page 3

MILITARY CONTRACT

BREACH ALLEGED CHARGES WITHDRAWN BY THE CROWN. Two informations against R. Hannah and Co., Ltd., boot manufacturers, for alleged breach of contract in respect- of the supply of military boots, which wera set dowu for hearing yesterday afternoon were brought to an abrupt conclusion in the Magistrate's Court, when Mr V. E. Meredith, who appeared for the Crown, applied to Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., for permission to withdraw the charges. Mr Meredith said that two charges nad been laid against Hannah: —(a) lor not screwing boots strictly in accordance with the specifications; (b) for failure to make deliveries in accordance with the terms of the contract. “The importance of the strictest compliance with military contracts," said Mr Meredith, "is such that the most, jealous eye is kept on contractors by the military authorities and the Advice Board of Supplies, and as this particular contract for the supply of boots by Messrs Hannah and _ Co. was not being carried out with satisfactory regularity proceedings were instituted. The essence of the ottencc charged in the information is that of wilfully breaking a contract with the Crown, and to support such an information clear evidence would need to be given that the breaches of contract were deliberately committed fay the contractors or by someone on their behalf and for their benefit. "The contractors have put forward their explanation as to the causes of the alleged breaches, and it must bo said in fairness to them- that they challenged proceedings to be taken to allow the fullest investigation. However, further inquiries with a view to testing the bona hdes of their explanations have been made by Government officials the result of which investigations suggest that there is at least some degree of excuse for the contractors in this case. In regard to the first information, namely, that some of the boots had not the requisite number of screws per boot required by the specifications, the department is satisfied that the machine used in this operation is not absolutely antomatio in its action, but is more or jess subject to the control of the operator and it will be possible only with the very closest supervision of the operators to enable rigid adherence to /the specifications. There is no motive that can be suggested tor skimping an this respect, as it is ascertained .that the value of the material saved, it not infinitesimal. is negligible. - . "The explanation put forward in regard to delay of deliveries was that, during certain months of the continuance of the contract, there was a distinct shortage in heavy solo leather, iho military boot required, a paruculaily fine quality of solo leather, and the investigation of a departmental officer has satisfactorily established the tact that there was such a shortage. Hannah and Co., however, were the principal oflenders in getting into arrears with their deliveries. This was the cause of delay to a small extent in one or'two other cases only. It may be that the exercise of closer supervision or greater toresight in procuring stocks of leather might have enabled Hannah and Co. to have more strictly complied with the contract, but that is of course not the question in this case. "Under these circumstances, it is cod. sidered that the evidence now in the hands of the department would establish that there was grave cause for dissatisfaction on the part of the Board of Supplies requiring it to call for the closest investigation, but I am unable to suggest that it would support a charge for wilful breach of contract on the part of Hannah and Co. This being so. the proper course, now the invest!, cations have been made, is to ask the leave of the court to withdraw the informations. I may add that the military authorities have fortunately not been hampered by the delay of delivery in this case owing to the stock of boots being well in advance of requirements. STATEMENT FOR DEFENCE.

Mr T. Neave, instructed by Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., represented the defendant. In reply to Mr Meredith, he said on behalf of R. Hannah and Co., Ltd., that no request or even suggestion had been mhde that the informations should be withdrawn. The company would have preferred to have had the whole of the tacts investigated and made public, but as the Crown was satisfied that there was no justification for proceeding with the information, all he could do was to make a short statement of the facts. He proceeded: “The main charge against the defendant company is the failure to deliver the contract number of boots. I desire to make it clear that the deficiency of supply arose entirely from the inability to purchase from the tanners an adequate supply of leather to carry out the contract. There was no lack of energy or assiduity on the company’s part in carrying out its contract, but its failure to do so arose entirely from causes beyond its control. With respect to the suggestion that there was defective spacing between the standard screws in the sole of some of the military boots, the information with reference to these has been properly withdrawn by the Crown. Had the matter been investigated it would have been shown that the military boot supplied by Hannah and Co., both as to material and workmanship, was at least equal to the sealed sample supplied by the Defence Department for the information of contractors." The Magistrate said ho was only con. cerned with the withdrawal of the informations, and would grant permission as applied for by the Crown.