Friday, 3rd September.

Otago Witness, Issue 1241, 11 September 1875, Page 5

Friday, 3rd September.

(Before His Honour Judge Bathgate and a Jury of four.) Graham and Co. v. David Proudfoot.— This • was a suit brought to recover damages for that sthe5 the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs (Wm. Graham, Henry M'Leod, and Alex. Graham) ' for the erection, by the plaintiffs, who were to supply labour only, of two bridges— one over the Oreti or New River, and one over Jacobs ■Eiver, Southland— the defendant to supply all, materials for the same, according as the plaintiffs should be ready to use such materials for the sum of L 920. Also that the plaintiffs did supplyall the necessary labour, according to the said contract, and duly performed part thereof, and were ready and willing to finish the said contract work. Yet the defendant wrongfully prevented and hindered the plaintiffs from finishing their said contract, and wrongfully refused to supply the plaintiffs with the necessary materials, whereby the plaintiffs were hindered from fulfilling the contract, and had lost the profits they would have made at the completion thereof, to plaintiffs' damage of L2OO. The following were the grounds of defence :—l.: — 1. That the defendant never agreed with the plaintiffs, as alleged. 2. That he-was not guilty of the wrongs in the particulars mentioned and set forth. 3. That the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant was subject to the terms of an agreement previously entered into between the defendant and the Superintendent of Otago, for the erection of the said works, and that one of these conditions was that the contractor, on receiving a written notice from the Engineer of Roads and Bridges, should suspend the whole or any portion of the works without compensation for the period of thirty working days. 4. That the defendant did not wrongfully hinder the plaintiffs from carrying on the said works. 5. That the defendant did not refuse to supply the material necessary to carry out the contract, but on the contrary did supply it according to the said contract, entered into by him with the Superintendent of Otago.— Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Haggitt for the defendant. — The learned counsel agreed that the evidence taken in this case would be allowed in the other case between the plaintiffs and defendant in the Resident Magistrate's Court. — The first witness called was William Graham, who said he, Henry M'Leod, and Alexander Graham had been working for Mr Proudfoot since 1872. Witness and he made a verbal contract. First, he was to build a bridge at Jacobs River- for' L 460, and then proceed to Oreti and build a similar bridge there at the same price. He was to supply no materials— it being a contract for labour only. This took place in the early part of April last. The plans and specifications produced were supplied to witness by defendant. They started work at Jacobs River bridge on April 26, with eleven men. Work went on without interruption until the 16th June. Defendant was frequently in attendance at the works. Mr Thomson was present when they commenced to turn the arches, and witness asked what he thought of them. He replied that they were getting on all right. Mr Bews, district engineer, also examined the arches, and spoke favourably of them. On seeing the castiron sockets sent by Mr Proudfoot they condemned them for being cast metal, and also for being wrongly cast. Witness stopped the work then, being unable to go on without the sockets. He then came to Dunedin and saw Mr Arthur,_ Provincial Government engineer, who said witness must have cut the end of the girder wrong, and took exception to the way in which the work had been done. Subsequently Mr Arthur condemned the arches. Mr Bews, who also found fault with the work, told witness that he would waive all right with the arch provided there was malleable iron put in. Work was finally stopped on the 2nd July, and had been entirely suspended since. — Mr Arthur, Provincial Engineer, stated that some parts of the bridge were to be of cast iron and others of malleable < iron. He would have preferred malleable iron for this particular structure. — By Mr Haggitt : He had seen by the specifications that mal-

leaWle iron was not specially mentioned. Ha did not consider the work at the bridge had been done in s workmanlike manner. It was not according to c&ntract. Witness had refined to pass thi3 work on that account, and accordingly Mr Proudfoot wonM not be paid for it. Witness explained to Mr Proudfoot a aviij- in. which the matter could be remedied. —Walter Bell, contractor, gave evidence to the effect, that there was no difference in fitting arches hx malleable or cast-iron sockets. This cloood plaintiffs' case, and Mr Haggitt then atLlressedi the Jury for the defence. Mr Geouge Proudfoot, manager of the works, gave evidence to the effect that Mr David Proudfoot supplied plaintiffs with all the necessary materials. Plaintiffswere in no way hindered from carrying on their work until Mr Arthur condemned the work. Witness considered the question one of castiron and malleable iron sockets.— Walter A. Bews, district engineer, said plaintiffs had heon carrying on the work of constructing the bv'n'ga very indifferently. He considered the tirahsr suitable, but the iron should have been malleable iron. Witness was not aware that the work had ever been stopped for want of material. The arches were not of the proper radius. — Mr Barton again addressed the Jtiry. — After a short retirement, the Jury announced themselves in » fog ; whilst satisfied that plaintiffs had done all in their power, and defendant supplied the material as per agreement, they were convinced of a fault somewhere, and wanted toget at the engineers. — His Honour said he could not adVise them on that point. — Shortly before eight o'clock, the Jury brought in a verdict — damages, £100. The Court then rose.

THE GAOL. The following was the state of H.M.s Gaol, Dunedin, for the week ending 4th September, 1875 :—: — , Males. Females.

Awaiting trial (not including one on bail) 4 Under remand... ... 1 Penal servitude . ... 36 Hard labour ... - ... 85 Imprisonment 2 Default of bail ' 2 Debtors " ... 1 0 ft 2: 23 0 0 0 Total 131 25 deceived during the week 10 lischarged do. ... 11 5 2