SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIII, Issue 15000, 2 November 1899, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Ju&twe Fdwards.) WILKIE v. WILKIE and WILKIE. Tuesday, October 31st. David Wilkie, settler, of Waitotara, the plaintiff, was called and examined by Mr Hutchison: — The two defendants were brothers of his, and John Wilkie was the eldest, then came Adam, and then himself (the witness). There had been another brother (Daniel), and a fifth (Neil) Wilkie, also dead. Daniel was next to John, flad been engaged in contracting for railway work for somethng like UO years, or a little over. Had been associated with his brothers. Remembered the first contract he was engaged in. It was a permanent way contract trom lnglewood to Stratford. The tender was in his (witness') name, and he got the contract. John, Daniel and Adam his brothers were interested in the contract. There had been no deed of partnership or agreement signed. The contract was about iiBOO. The contract was completed, and it was a profitable one. The proceedes were equally divided between the four brothers. There was another contract (the Waipouku), also a permanent way work. He (witness) was again the tenderer, and the other three brothere were again interested. It was a profitable contract, and the profits were divided equally. The next contract was a sleeper contract, and witness was again the tenderer, his brothers being again with him. The next was a contract for formation and permanent way from Waitotara to Waverley at £12,400. Witness had again tendered, and his same three brothers again participated in the profits. There had been no agreement signed, and there had been no disputes. The next was on the Manawatu Railway lino (No. 11 Contract) for formation and permanent way. The tenderers were Adam, Jas. Wilson and witness. This was for £12,000. It was on the Manawatu Railway Company's Line. The contract was profitable, and the profits were equally divided. John was not in it. Then there was a similar contract before ib:? from Waverloy to Patea. John Wilkie had tendered for this. Witness was in.terested to the extent of a full share in the contractWitness was a surety but at the same time interested in the result. Jas. Crawford was also interested for a time, but he retired, and Auam Wilkie took his place. The contract was worth £23,000, but it was not a success, there having been rather a serious loss. This loss was shared equally by himself and brothers. He believed there had been a deed drawn out by John Wilkie. There was not a dispute. Hemembered another contract (No. 13) on the Manawatu Line, from the terminus of No. 11 contract. John Wilkie and witness tendered first, but no tenders were accepted at first. They were not the lowest. Tenders were again | called* and a, tender was sent in the name of Adam Wilkie. This tender was arranged by John and witness. Adam was at Waitotara at the time, and the worse for drink. Adam was not informed of the tender being sent in until later. The tender was accepted for £oo,uuy. Clark-Dunn, John and witness were interested as well as Adam. The work was profitable, some £6000, which was divided. Clark-Dunn had onethird, and John and Adam had the balance. There was some difficulty in regard to himself; thought there was some litigation, but could not say. Witnesj was taking charge of No. 11 contract at the time. There was another contract on the Manawatu Line (No. 17). The tenderers were Adam Wilkie, James Wilson and witness. This was also profitable, and the profits were divided. Wilson got one-fifth and the balance was equally divided between himself and Adam. This was all on the Manawatu line. There was another contract at Kawkapukapu, north of Auckland. Adam Wilkie, Jas. Wilson, and witness tendered. The contract was profitable and the profits were divided equally. Remembered the Westport Harbour Works contract, which was tendered for by John, Adam, Wilson and witness. The amount was about £35,000, with the extras. The work was profitably ably carried out, and the profits divided equally. He might be mistaken as to an equal division. He believed John Wilkie got one- third and Wilson, Adam and witness got equal parts of two-thirds of tho profitts. There was a deed of agreement in the Westport contract. There was litigation arising out of the Westport contract, but in connection with the contract itself. After the Westport contract John, Adam and himself settled at Waitotara and took up land. Remembered C. N. O'Connor in connection! with the. Westporb Harbour Works. O'Connor had an official position. Had known O'Connor had left New Zealand to go to West Australia, to take up an unofficial position. Remembered 1894, when his (witness') attention was directed to the proposed public works at Western Australia. John, Adam and himself talked about the matter. Wrote to C. Y. O'Connor with reference to the contracts likely to come out for public works'. John and Adam Wilkie and himself had several conversations about going over and tendering for railway works. Wilson and witness wrote to O'Connor and asked whether it was likely of any contracts coming out,