SUMMNER'S TROUBLES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9112, 18 December 1907, Page 2

SUMMNER'S TROUBLES.

— . + . A DISCHARGED ENGINEER. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES^ The bearing of the claim by- W. J.) O'Donnell, for damages for wrongful*' discharge by the Sumner Borough Conn-! eil from his position as engineer, wail continued at the Supreme Court to-day, before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, j , E. G. "Woods, member of the Sumn-)r- j Borough Council and chairman of the! Works Committee, stated that ihera; was always great trouble in getting any information from the engineer. He baa submitted prices of metal which, were found to be leas than naif the real cost. The engineer^ when, he bad' dons a great part of the work under th« loan, had complained, but only privately, that the allocation of the loan did /not giv c him enough money to work' with. j Sidney Robert Wright, clerk to the Heathcote Road BoarcL and late clerk of the Kaiapoi Borough Council, stated thai he had acted, practically as engineer to those bodies. The Heathcote Board had spent a great deal of money through" him on the roads. He bad in» spected the roads and drains in Sumner.; The road from Swift's to the viaduct had not been properly formed. ;• It was narrow, and should not have hod a crown at all, but should have been sloped from the hill downwards.. The three-inch pipes put in for cross-road drainage were much too small. He always used culverts with , lOin by 6in openings. ■[ j Charles William Comer, clerk of the 1 ' Halswell Road Board for the past thirty years, and experienced in con* structing hillside roads, gave evidence. I similar to that of last witness. , i Charles Hastings Bridge, surveyor, 6tated that he had prepared sections of the roads in question, showing the contours of the greater part of the road along the flat. The rise of the road above the tram-line was in one place lft in. sft 6in. The road formation had been carried out in an .unpractical manner. James Crawford, civil engineer, stated that hej prepared the allocations for 1 , the purposes or the 1 special loan. Leonard Aubrey Stringer, town clerk of Sumner, • gave evidence ac to the expenditure on various works/ and ; said that one of s the works for^ which the engineer prepared an estimate cost £250 above his estimate, and was Kttle more than half-finished. In connection with the letter-book" incident, witness said that when he went for the book, O'Donnell told him he did not Kke it going out of his office ; it was "like the^ Mayor's damned* cheek td ask him for. | it," and if he wanted 'to see it, he should come down to look at it. When he. was further pressed, for the book, he said he would not give it, but>-would make copies of the letters required for the meeting, but l/c did not refer to the letter that was torn out later, but to another None. After still another dej mand, O'Donnell handed over the book, with the page torn out. O'Donnell used to lock himself up, and the only way to see him was to knock and ask to be let in. He usually had an assistant with him. From 9 a.m.! he was available to the public till }0 a.m., when hej retired into eeclueiorij and i would nor reply to the ptiblic; 'witness had a private Knock. " v ; This concluded the case ior the defence. , ' - Mr Dougall, in opening his case, said that the charges levelled against his client were extremely serious, and were such as to ruin his professional reputation if they were accepted by a special jury. He drew attention to i the fact that hardly any expert evidence had r been called on the matter of road construction. Nothing had come out sufficient to warrant a jury in saying that the engineßr\was incompetent. The letter to Chambers and Son was another matter,- but. he wonM be able to show later that extraordinary circumstances had justified . the writing of that letter, which was written only to the local representative of a company, in a moment of anger, to ask for help in refuting an untrue statement by" a dismissed employee.. With reference to O'DonnelTs failure with the oil engine he submitted thai? a civil engineer need not hare a knowledse of mechanics engineering 1 . W. J. O'Donnell, the plaintiff, gave evidence. He stated that he was a civil engineer, who for) three years had built bridges for the Railway Department. He had since been a contractor and assistant engineer to the Palmerston Borough Council. The first thing he had to do when appointed wa6 to look over _ the crushing plant. He was disappointed at its ago and out-of-dateness, but said he would Ido his beet with it. The plant was set I to work, and he proposed some addiL tions in the shape of an elevator, tram* lines and trolleys. The Council authorised the alterations. He described the arrangements he had made for the automatic supply of metal to the crusher and the control of the all of which were effective, at the trial. Before his additions were made metal I cost 3s 4£d per yard. Afterwards the! i ccst was 2s 7£d. The Council was an-l 1 tagonistic to the working of thj» plan.li all the time. The machinery Broke.; I down after a day or two, but the dam* age was, such as might occur to any plant, and was not attributable to hia[ work. The crusher, as fitted up by\ him, cost £486. He described the works he had done in draining upper; Clifton, where he was in no> way rew eonsible for the reading. ■/ The/irain-< age sump he had put in had been filled! by etone and rubbish washed off the road by the rain, owing to the watei! overflowing the channels. The oil en* gino plant bad been passed by an engw neer of colonial repute "ac \vell set up* Witness had charge of the water-work* for some time, and his policy of •**•» guarding the supply from waste. OMMMIj trouble with the Fire Brigade. Iw March last tRa pumping eagiam wag|

'found to have been tampered with, on more than one occasion ; and in May the crank shaft broke.