SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7540, 17 April 1886, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. Thursday, April 15. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) IN RE J. B. BLAIR'S CLAIM. The hearing of this case was resumed. J. B. Blair, contractor for the Upper Waitaki bridge, seeks to recover a sum of £9492 5s 'Id from the Duntroon and Hakateramea Railway Company, the amount beiug made up as follows :—Balance due on contract, £7166 12s Od ; due for timber, £1215 4s 6d ; and for interest, £1910 8s Id; less £SOO cash received, leaving a total of £9492 5s 4d. Mr Blair now appeared, in pursuance of notice, to substantiate his claim.

Mr W. D. Stewart appeared for Mr Blair; Mr Sim for the official liquidator (Mr G. S. Brodrick), and Mr Haggitt for the Hon. Mr Campbell, who is largely interested in the matter.

Mr Haggitt submitted that the evidence adduced at last hearing was conclusive that Mr Blair had nothing to do with the Railway Company at all. His contract was with the commissioners, and the whole of the work he now claimed for against the Company was originally done for them. They deputed that there was any liability on the part of the Company; and if there was auy liability on the part of anybody, that it was not for anything like the amount claimed.

His Honor: Mr Stewart's contention is that the liability of the commissioners was taken over by the Company. If that contention is right, we want to know what amount is owing. Mr Haggitt pointed out that the contract was entered into before the Company was registered, and the estimated cost was £11,000, and not £20,000. The whole question was, Had Mr M'Gregor authority to incur this expenditure in the first place, and bind the Company in the second? The utmost amount due under Blr Coyle's certificate would be £16,000. He submitted that it had been conclusively shown that the commissioners were liable. They were the original contractors, and there were only two ways in which the Company could be made liable—one would be as guarantors of the Waitaki Briuge Commissioners, and the other by novation or substitution. There was no evidence of a guarantee.

Mr Stewart agreed to abandon that point. Mr Haggitt argued that there had not bei

the unanimous consent of the parties which was necessary to novation and substitution, and that if the parties had agreed, the Company could only bind itself under its common seal. It was sought to make the Company liable on books, very irregularly kept, belonging to Mr M'Gregor, but containing entries relating to the Company. He was not there to vilify Mr M'Gregor, but if Mr M'Gregor had been thore questions could have been put to him which would show that the entries in the books were made for his own purposes and to serve his own ends.

Mr Sim contended that Mr M'Gregor acted without proper authority.

Mr Thomas Callender deposed that he was accountant to the Company. He made certah entries relating to this matter by instruction oi Mr M'Gregor.

Mr Sim argued that Mr Blair's claim for interest should fail.

Mr Stewart contended that they had committed themselves to interest. As to the general question, the grounds on which he relied were these: That there was a clear liability of £7000 odd in 1881. Blair instructed proceedings to be taken against the commissioners. Mr Campbell was going Home, and Mr M'Gregor promised Blair that if he would not take any further proceedings his claim would be paid out of debentures to be floated by Mr Campbell. Mr Blair suspended proceedings, but the debentures we c not floated. Mr Blair made another application for payment in 1882 or 1883, and Mr M'Gregor then told him that they were trying to sell the live to the Government, and as soon as this was done he would get paid. The Company was the party really interested in the bridge, anrl the o'-hers were mere contributories. It would be difficult to get more, conclusive evidence of the Company having taken over the liability than had been adduced.

His Honor said he would like to look up the law on novation, and he would take time to consider his decision.

IN HE W. F. ALLEN'S CXAIJI.

A claim by W. F. Allen of £2503 15s 8c against the Duntroon and Hakateramea Railway Company was reduced by agreement between the parties to .£44 7s 3d.

Mr Denniston appeared for the claimant, whose claim is assigned from Davidson and Conyers' estate; and Mr Sira for the liquidator of the Railway Corapßny (Mr G.S. Brodrick).