O'CONNOR V. DALRYMPLE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 8358, 4 November 1898, Page 4

O'CONNOR V. DALRYMPLE.

THE LATE HARBOR CONTRACT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr J. Booth, S.M., the case of T. O'Connor v. T. Dalrympleand the Harbor Board wns continued. Mr DeLauto.ir appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr K. Chrisp for tho defendant Dalrymple. The Harbor Board was represented by Mr H. J. Finn. After our report closed yesterday thu cross-examination of Mr John Townloy, Chairman of tho Harbor Board, by Mr DeLautour was proceeded with. Witness stated that before O'Connor wns sent for the Board had arrived at the proposed resolution, and it was this that O'Connor was asked to sign. O'Connor's attention was drawn to the fact that both he and his sureties were anxious to withdraw from the contract, and the resolution of the Board went as far as possible to meet them. O'Connor took care not to bind himself, and went away on the plea that he wished to consult his brother. The Board at the present time were not employing the plant exclusively for the contract. The Board were using the plant as though it was their own. Under the terms of the contract it certainly was the property of the Board. The Board had claimed the material as their property until something definite was settled. It was not the property of the Board to sell. By Mr Chrisp : The Board were compelled to take over the plant. They had considerably improved it before they could use it. The Board had not, as far as he was aware, wholly confiscated the plant. William Sievwright, a member of the Board, deposed that he was acquainted with the proceedings of the Harbor Board, and what had passed at the several meetings when the contract was discussed. Witness corroborated the statement made by the Chairman as to what had passed at the two meetings held on the 26th and 27th August. Witness thought the Board were going a little too fast with regard to the seizing of the material used by O'Connor, so he took the precaution of moving a resolution making it certain that the contractor anil sureties had abandoned the contract. When this had been secured the course was open for entering upon negotiations for a settlement. He remembered the Chairman asking the question if he agreed to the proposal of the Board. The plaintiff made a lengthy address, the purport of which was that he threw himself upon the mercy of the Board, having been practically ruined by the contract. The Board acquiesced in the proposal made by Mr. Chrisp. The proposal referred to was not put as a resolution, and had not been carried by the Board. Cross - examined by Mr DeLautour : Witness did not think the Board believed they had the power to confiscate the property. The Board was using the material, and he supposed the terms of the contract allowed them to do so. In hiring the Lena the Board were not letting it as their own property The Board did not look upon the plant as their own property, nor did they think they could do as they liked with it. Captain Tucker, another member of the Board, was also examined as to what passed at the meetings of the Board on the 26th and 27th August. The contract was abandoned by the plaintiff and his sureties at the meeting on the 27th August. Wituess remembered asking O'Connor the question, " Do you abandon this contract?" His reply was, "What else can I do ?" and proceeded to excuse himself why he could not go on with the work. O'Connor asked the Board to deal with him as leniently as they could. Counsel was proceeding to interrogate the witness regarding what day it was that ho had pub the question to O'Connor regarding the abandonment of the contract, when Mr Chrisp objected to the manner in which the question was being put, and a strong passage of arms between counsel followed. Mr Chrisp : He puts the answers into the witness's mouth. Mr DeLautour, disregarding his learned friend's interruption, went on with his question, " Did not O'Connor come alone when he brought this letter 1" Mr Chrisp again rose and protested to the Bench. "Sit down !" demanded counsel for the plaintiff, "and allow me to continue my cross-examination as I think fit." Making noheadway, MrDeLautouragain remarked, " Will you sit down, Mr Chrisp ?" " No, I will not," replied that gentleman. "Come, what is the matter with you ?" said His Worship, " what are you making such a fuss about V Mr Chrisp : " I cannot allow the witness to be misled." Hia Worship ; " I do not think he will mislead Captain Tucker far." (Laughter). Mr- DeLautour, addressing his friend, said, " I shall resume my examination if you have quite done ; but I am not going on until you have finished." Hia Worship read the evidence regarding tho question put by witness to O'Connor with reference to the abandonment of the contract, and Mr DeLautour asked, " Did not that conversation take place on the first day that the Board considered O'Connor's letter '!" Witness : Yes ; according to my recollection it did take place on the first day. Counsel : When the sureties were not present and before the Board had interviewed them '! Witness : Yes ; I believe so. Captain Thomson, recalled by Mr DeLautour, said that it was in consequence of receiving a telegram from O'Connor re storage of dynamite that he made the arrangements with Mr Dalrymple. Mr Finn addressed the Court at some length, quoting several cases in support of his contention that as soon as the dynamite was put on the wharf it became the property of the Board. Messrs Chrisp and DeLautour -also addressed the Court. His Worship reserved judgment.