WESTLAND CIRCUIT COURT. NISI PRIUS SITTINGS.

West Coast Times, Issue 629, 30 September 1867, Page 2

WESTLAND CIRCUIT COURT. NISI PRIUS SITTINGS.

Before Mr Justice Richmond and a Special Jury. Satueday, Septejebeb 28. The Court re-opened at ten o'clock a.m. .EDGAR V. THE IIOKITKA AKD KASIKRI TBAMWAT COiIPAKY. Mr Button, with Mm Mr South, for plaintiff. -S. Mr Bees, with him Mr -Harvey, for defendants. ■ - . '■ The defendants' case was proceeded with. Arthur Anthony, examined by Mr Harvey I am a contractor, and have been engaged on public works in the colonies for about fifteen years. I know tho contract which' was taken by plaintiff for Kanieri Tramway. -I inspected the line about six months ago — about March. I was asked to act as arbitrator for the Company, and so I inspected the line and made noteß at the time of the inspection. I found embankment No. 1 and culvert very crooked, and too low in the level. All the embankments throughout 1 the line^are composed of large timber, small timber, fern trees, brushwood, and rubbish. There is no specication for embankments. Hi 3 Honor — It is in the contract. Witness — Yes, your Honor. Ido not consider any of the embankments are done welL By his Honor — Embankments -are earthworks. _ Examination continued— The sleepers on No. 1 embankment are not laid in accordance with specification No. 3. None of them have been done that way. I should not have passed them as properly done. I pointed out one of tho embankments as sure to ship, and I see since it has been propped up. Embankment No. 1 is neither good crib work nor a good earthen embankznent. No. 1 viaduct has no washers, Che diagonal struts are not the specified struts. I did not notice whether the timber was of the propler sort. On this side of the viaduct the road jis raised, tho embankment being composed is the former one. Embankment No 2 haY slipped, but I am not sure whether that has been \ propped or not. No. 3 viaduct is about two j feet too low in the level. I did not notice \ whether tho sills in it were properly bedded, -^ white pine and brush have been used in its \ construction. No 3 viaduct is very bad, the I joints in the timber are filled up with clay. I \ noticed one of the braces trenailed into a lot ■ of muck ; no washers on the bolts. If my memory serves me right I think that viaduct is covered with cordoroy. I .noticed nothing about tho levels of Brick Yard Creek ; the sills there aro not embedded. I did not notice whether the struts were of the right size. In No. 5 viaduct there is 648 feet of planking short ; white pine has been used in it; small corderoy has been substituted, for plauking. No. 6 viaduct is too low, from two to three feet ; I put it down for two feet six inches. You go down with it and come up again. By His Honor — I think it is safe enough for horse traflic. • continued — I noticed tha

Kanieri cutting — it is not token out at the specified width, twelve feet. At that time I thought it very unsafe ; there was a water race running over it, and the water was dripping down. That cutting has since been sloped. Ido not know who that sloping was done by. I noticed the sleepers all through the line, they were packed with chips and small timber. I speak of those lying tin the timber ; the sleepers on the earth were properly bedded. In many places the timber under the sleepers was small. I did not notice whether the sleepers were trenailed on the viaduct. It would he impossible for me to guess at the value of the work done by the contractor. I did not calculate it. Ido not even know the length. I think I have heard the contract price was LI3OO. I think the work ought to have done for that. The ballasting would be abotit five cubic yards per chain ; a fair price would be 3s a cubic yard, or 15s a chain. I would take the ballasting of the whole line at that price. I consider the line will cost more for maintenance than •if the work had been done according to the specification. If the work had been done according to the specification it would have been done in a substantial and workmanlike manner. Contractors always either copy specifications or pay for' them. In Victoria they have printed copies, which you pay so much for. I am of opinion that the workmanship generally is bad on the whole line. Cross-examined by Mr South — I would not tender on that section produced without seeing the country. There is not a real embankment on the •whole line. I am almost positive there is no gravel in embankment 80. 1. Mr South — What do £ou call rubbish? Witness— Why, leaves j rubbish, is stuff taken out of excavations ; gravel is called rubbish. If there is gravel in BTo. 1 embankment it is in very small quantitios. I did not go into the embankment. The line has been opened since January. I have frequently travelled on it, and never heard of any accident. Engines, weighing about six tons, I think, have been carried on trucks on the line. A carriage did once get off a curve. Mr South — Yes ; but that Was one of Paddy Sloane's curves, not one of our curves. Cross-examination continued — I know that there was 640 feet of planking short on the bridge, although I did not measure the whole of the bridge. Mr South — If you did not measure it, how do you know what was short. Witness — Because I measured what was short. Ec-examined by Mr Harvey — I do not know whether any repairs had to be done after the engflieer went over the line. There were men On the line repairing it after the Governor . went up, they were wedging up the sleepers and ballasting. I saw some' of the bolts that had not been screwed up. By the Foreman — I had a standard for judging that the viaduct -n-as true in the level where there is a gradient mentioned in the plan. I have no idea whether any levels were given. I would not make a line without levels. The chips I referred to for packing were quite loose, and the natural course of wear would cause them to come out. By His Honor — The sleepers are packed by the ballast; if the earthwork was properly made up, you would not require any bedding on timber at all. There is no cribwork on the line. By Mr Cleve, a juryman — I cannot tell whose fault it was that the viaducts were too low. Miles Ashmore, examined by Mr Eecs — In November, December, and January last, I was manager of the Kanieri Tramway Company. I know the contract and specifications, and signed them on behalf of the company. I was on the work every day during its construction. Prom the first I found fault with the work. I found fault with the line at the commencement of Edgar's contract. I toid Mr Edgar so. It was altered the second time. They did not put proper timber for packing underneath. I and Mr Frew saw Mr Edgar about embankment 2To. 1. Mr Frew said that would not do — it was not proper timber. It was never altered. There were stays put on the west side of the embankment, as Mr Frew thought it might tumble over. Some of the stays were placed in properly. The other embankments were not well made. A portion of the second embankment slipped down whilst the man was laying the sleepers across it. No embankments were allowed in the specification. None of the places called embankments were altered and made according to the plans and specifications. I went to Dan's bridge with Mr Frew, Mr Edgar, and Dan M'Leod to give the levels which were given by Mr Frew. I drove a peg in to show the engineer's level. I saw the bridge after it was commenced, and told Mr Edgar that it looked very low ; aud he said it was according to the level. I do not know what became of the peg I put in. That was before the tressels were set up. I spoke to Mr Edgar about the peg after the bridge was up. He said it might have been taken away by accident. Mr Frew told Mr Edgar that the bridge was too low, and Mr Edgar promised to raise it to the height the engineer would require. I got large sleepers on to the ground to raise it the next morning. The bridge was raised on the Hokitika side about three inches. The large sleepers were taken on to another bridge. Dan M'Leod was a subcontractor. I spoke to him about the leveh whilst the bridge was building, and he said that when the sleepers and the rails were on it would be too low. He spoke to me also about four months ago. Mr Button — After Mr Edgar had given up the line — that won't do ! Examination continued — I was present with Mr Frew when he told Mr Edgar that there was some white pine in one of the bridges, and that it was too low, that bridge was not altered at all. The Bills at the foot of the bridges are mostly lying on the top of the peaty surface of the ground — the sills are not properly bedded in any of the bridges ; I told Mr Edgar of that on several occasions, and so did Mr Frew. Edgar said that they should be put right — they have not been put right. The line was ballasted mostly with clay. I spoke of it several times, and it never was taken off, and it has caused the rails to rot. I'he pieces were packed with pieces of timber. I showed Edgar the original survey of the line, and told him he must work according to that. I had the plans in the office — nailed up — all the time the contract was going on. They were there when I left the office. I went over the line with the contractor, and pointed out to him the direction of the line — that was not strictly adhered to — my orders were not strictly adhered to — as some large trees were in the way, and the line was taken round them instead of felling them. I Baw the gradients in the line, they were not ' proper gradients. Mr Frew's orders were not obeyed— as regards the gradients. There was plenty of timber lying along the line — all the three sorts of timber — rails, keys, and sleepers. I supplied seventy rails seventeen feet long. They belonged to the company. They were intended for bridge No. 6 ; they did for the planking of the bridge. I know the plaintiff used some of the company's timber. I told them not to use any more any more of them. There were 1200 sleepers lying along the line when the contract was commenced. By his Honor — There were 4000 sleepers ÜBed by the plaintiff. Examination continued — I was with Edgar at the Kanieri, and pointing out to him the terminus there; it was opposite the Post Office. We did not go the spot. He said a

few chains was nothing to get up there, as it •was good ground. I did not put a peg in at the end of the little firewood tramway. I put the peg in opposite the Post Office at the Eanieri. I remember seeing Juckes a few days before he went. to the Bu^er. Wo were speaking about the line. Mr Eees— What did he say ? Mr Button— l object to that, as Edgar wag not present. The witness was requested to leave the Court, and Jucke's evidence was referred to. His Honor overruled the objection. Examination continued — Juckes said that he had been to Mr Edgar about L 2, ana! Mr Edgar might have given it to him for the time he lost in the Eanieri cutting. Juckes also said that plaintiff wanted him (Juckes) to swear that he (Edgar) was delayed for want of materials. Juckes said that lie" was waiting at the cutting for a fortnight before' he could lay the rails. Juckes was not present when when the levels for Dan's bridge were taken. I saw Jukes standing idle on the ground, waiting for the cutting being finished. I do not remember the contractor waiting for materials which the company had to supply. I never gave permission to plaintiff to use birch for red pine; I had no authority to do bo. I remember Mr Ecgar attendhg a meeting of the directors; he said he would make any alteration that was required after the line was opened, for as he was a shareholder he wanted to see the line opened. I remember being asked by Mr Hope to sign papers at Mr Button's office. This is the letter I wrote in reply, dated 13th April. I told Mr Hope that before I signed I must know what papers they were. He said they were for detention of levels and materials. I told him I should not go. Mr Button— l had no such papers. Examination continued— Edgar's men were working on the line when the Governor went up. Ido not know whether they were working afterwards. Once Mr Edgar told me that he would not allow me to interfere with his men, as I had nothing to do with them. Mr Frew told me to see things carried out. Mr Eees— Did Mr Edgar know that? Witness— Certainly. I never saw Edgar do any re-ballasting. Mr Bees— Did the contractor ask you anything about the specifications? Mr Button objected to the question, as being a leading question. Mr Eecs — Oh ! very well. Eecollect I never asked you about the specifications. (Laughter.) Did he ask you for anything ? Witness — The specifications were given to plaintiff about a fortnight after the contract was taken. He asked for them once before that. Mr Edgar gave permission to use the line, and I did so. I told Edgar that the Kanieri cutting was not wide enough at the bottom. I remember a portion of the line being removed, because it was not put down in the place I showed him. CrCsS-exaniined by Mr Button— lt was about half-past six a.m. when we went up to Dau's Bridge to put the peg; there was a little mound of earth there. I did not see Edgar put a peg in. Frew put a peg in the opposite sidc,and a line was stretched across. The line was about six inches above the leycl peg then put in. I went over the line with Messrs. Hope, Edgar, Kitchen, and others, to point the line out; That was when I pointed out where the terminus was to be. I will swear that I did not point out a peg at the end of the little tramway as the site of the terminus at the Kanieri. There was a peg there. Some were away drinking when I pointed out the site of the lerminus. lam certain that Mr Edgar was there. I do not recollect whether Mr Hope was there. I will swear that I did not point out the peg at the end of the private tramway as the terminus of the contract. Hope asked me to sign a paper for tho wet days as well as for the detention^ for materials. The paper now produced is in my handwriting. I gave it to Mr Hope. Hope asked me to give him the number of wet days he was entitled to, and I gave this paper. There are six ror eight chains of the line not cleared to the width of 12 feet, between the Brick-yard Creek and the Globe Hotel, by 12 feet wide. I mean 6 feet wide on each side of- the centre of the tramway. I am not prepared to swear that in any part the line is not cleared twelve feet wide from side to side. The sleepei-3 (1200) were lying from the commencement of Edgar's contract about 200 yards beyond the Brickyard" creek. No rails, no keys were lying there then. I counted the sleepers. There was not a single occasion when they were waiting for rails. There were plenty of rails and sleepers if they liked to fetch them. They did have to wait for keys. I never asked Mr Edgar or Mr Hope to let their men carry sleepers out of the bush ; tho Company never paid them for doing so. Some of the Bleepers, rails, and keys which I supplied were growing in the bush after, the 24th December. Tnere were hundreds lying about. There were not many left after Mr Edgar had finished. I never borrowed any money from Edgar to pay the men cutting sleepers. Edgar did give me a cheque for L 7 10s, to pay the sawyers. The Company was not short of money. Did you either draw, sign, accept, or endorse any bill to which Hope and Edgar were parties, in order to get it discounted, so that the Company might make payment on account ? Witness — I did not, but I believe such a bill for L4OO was made, and the money was raised through the Bank of New South Wales. I do not know by whom. By his Honor — The last rails used in the Kanieri cutting came partly from the saw-mill. By the Foreman — I did not go to tho end of the line at the Kanieri, because Edgar said that he could see it very well. When I saw that the line was begun at both ends I frequently called Edgar's attention to the fact of where the Kanicri terminus was to be. Harvey Huntley examined by Mr Harvey, deposed that lie was cutting sleepers on the Kanieri line for the Company. Mr Edgar directed witness were to put the sleepers Edgar never complained that they were not delivered fast enough. Witness had completed the cutting of 500 by the first week in December. At this stage the Court adjourned until two o'clock. Daniel M'Leod examined by Mr Harvey — I am a carpenter residing in Hokitika. I took a contract from plaintiff to build a bridge over a creek on the Kanicri Tramway hi November last. I set the levels ; Mr Frew and Mr Ashmore pointed them out -to me. I then went into Hokitika and brought Edgar, Ashmore, and the Engineer. I had a line across then to indicate the centre of the road. Edgar wished to have the levels lower. Frew and Ashmore consented to lower it six inches on the Hokitika, and one foot at the Kauieri end. That was agreed by all hands to be the level. After the Engineer. went away Edgar asked mo to lower the levek further. I lowered the nortli and the south end one foot six inches below the levels given. That was not done with the consent or knowledge of tho Engineer. The bridge was then covered with six inch planks, viz., 75 rails 16 feet long, cut in two. I was given to understand by Edgar that tho rails belonged to the Company. I got them from tho Company's sawyers. After I used the rails Mr Ashmore objected strongly. Cross-examined by Mr Button — I know the sawyers were not cutting for Mr Edgar. Well, I can't exactly say that they were not cutting timber for Mr Edgar. They did not cut timber for Mr Edgar at the time I cut. tho rails. I never offered evidence to give either way if I got LlO. lam on my oath. I know Andrew Hope, I conversed

with him in Westporfc. I do not recollect saying to him " I was always in a law suit." I never said there was a law Buit coming on out of which money was to be made ; Mr Hope asked me if I would swear a false oath, and I said I would not. After speaking about a section to Mr Andrew Hope, which Mr Kynnerriey gave over to Mr Hees I do not think that conversation has anything to do with the case. I had that conversavion in my own hut, at the Buller. I did not say to Mr Andrew Hope that I was in a mess again. I do not recollect referring to the law suit between Edgar and Kanieri Company. Ido not recollect saying, there was money to be made out of that law suit yet — I would not be mean enough. Ido not think I said that I could mako' the case go which way I liked. I told Mr Hope there was a balance clue ; I now decline to answer any more questions. Did you tell Mr A* Hope what was due on the Gcension ? Witness— l decline to answer that question ; ask any questions which refer to this case and I will answer you— l did say there was LB los clue. Did you tell Hope, that 'it would bo better for Edgar and R. Hope to pay that money, as there was a law suit coming on ? Witness — I casnot recollect ; I caanofc say whether I said that I could make the case go which way I liked. Did you say that, without exactly commuting perjury, your could make the case go very different ? I can't recollect. I can't say whether Andrew Hope warned me of it. I did not expect to meet him here. I know John Dawson, who has just been called in. I might have had a conversation with him in the Robert Burns, about a week after the Governor was here. Ido not recollect having had a conversation with him at all. I was not going to take a contract for moving a cottage. We might have had a talk about it at the Robert Burns Hotel. I did not have a conversation withhim about a job. I remember having a conversation with him as to tenders about a cottage. That has nothing to do with the case. That was some time after the Governor was here, about oight or nine (For continuation see Page 4.J

CiEcmtT Covet. —Continued from, pageZ. ,

months ago. I do not recollect where the> conversation took place. I car>'t say whethor it was at the back of the Bobort Burns or not. Did you say to Dawson if it (this contract) came to a lawsuit there was money to be made out of it? I never said so. I never said so many times to my recollection. I remember being in the British and American Hotel at the Buller. I saw Eobert Hope there. I did not ask him if his brother Andrew had told him the conversation I had with him. I knew Andrew would tell his brother; but I never said money was to be made out of ifc. Did Mr E. Hope say he would rather give you a gallows to hang you than LlO ? I can't recollect. I saw Mr Edgar at the Buller. I can't say whether in June or July. Did you say to him, " We do not know each other so well as ire ought to do" ? I can't recollect. Did you say to Mr Edgar, "Well, but you're got a lawsuit coming on, and I can make it go which way I please" ? Witness —No. Mr Button —l wish to put in a document; it is not stamped, but I am prepared to pay the fine ? Witness —l know what ifc is before you put it in. Mr Button —Do you. You seem to have an intuitive knowledge on the subject. His Honor —lfc is a receipt for money received. Witness —l consider ifc is a case now ! I knew when I signed the receipt, it was a receipt in full. James Kennedy Sloane, examined by Mr Eecs —l am Superintendent of Works at Westport. I tendered for the Kanieri Tramway. I saw the work whilst in the course of construction. It was not constructed according to the specifications as I understood. I have read over the specifications. I saw aome of the timber upon which the rieepers were supported. Some of the sleepers were laid down upon stout timber, some on chips and branches. The bridges were built of white pine, red pine, and birch, the principal portion was birch. Tha work was not done in a substantial manner according to the specifications as I understood. Ido not remember setting washers on the holts; some bolts were screwed up, and some not. The •ills were not bedded according to the specifications ; they were not bedded properly; the embankments were constructed hi a very temporary way. I did not see the work when it was taken out of the plaintiff's hands I have been up and dowu the line since it was completed, but not to take any particular notice. I did not take particular notice of the curves; they were bad from beginning to end. Cross-examined by Mr Button —There were bad curves in the line I laid down. I was not responsible for them. John Samuel Lang examined by Mr Harvey—l am a contractor; I have been bo for ten years. During the progress of this contract I had occasion to go up the line and examine the work as it progressed. My opinion is that the work is not executed according to specification. The materials used are neither of the quality or size specified. I heard Ashmore on several occasions state to plaintiff that he objected to the work, and he said he would make it right. I consider the bridges very deficiently built. I was present at a conversation between the plaintiff and the Company's engineer about the bridge No. 2. The engineer complained of the timber put in that bridge. Tha plaintiff promised at the time to make the work all right. I am a shareholder in the Company. I recollect the line being opened. I was present, so was Mr Edgar. Do you recollect what was said ? Mr Button objected, that there were minutes kept, and the minute-book was the proper evidence, but eventually relinquished the objection. Witness —Mr Edgar was a shareholder at that time himself. I was present at a meeting which took place subsequently to the Governor's visit, but I do not recollect what transpired. I could not say when I saw Edgar's men last -working on the line. There was another plan of the whole line in the Company's office, nailed up against the wall. Some of the packing is very inferior; some of ifc rotten timber, and some fern leaves, instead of 8-in timber. I made myself, with some of the other directors, jointly and severally liable for a bill for a loan from the Bank of New Zealand. Cross-examined by Mr South —l am a director, a shareholder, and an hotel-keeper. The line passes my house ; there is considerable traffic on the line. The first time I examined the line was when the dispute was to come on for arbitration. Everything is at fault on No. 2 embankment; it is nine feet ten inches above the level of the ground; it is composed of timber and branches of trees. Mr Edgar promised that he would alter ifc, but he did not. I never was at a meeting more than once when Mr Edgar was there. John Dolan examined by Mr Eecs —l am a carpenter. I was sub-contractor under plaintiff on the Kanieri Tramway for a viaduct this side of the brick yard. Eed pine, white pine and birch were used. Edgar allowed me to put white pine in. I did not get the full amount of my money because Mr Edgar ■would not pay me until Frew passed it. The bark was not taken off the timber. Cross-examined by Mr Button —Mr Edgar kicked off one white pine cap before it was fitted. Be-examined —Edgar said that the cap was too small. He did not find fault with it as timber. Thomas Stone examined by Mr Harvey —l am an ironmonger iv Hokitika* I know plaintiff, I supplied him with bolts for the Knnieri Tramway. I made those bolts to order, no washers were supplied with them. .1 was not asked to supply washers. lam a shareholder of the Company. I remember Edgar saying at a meeting of the Directors that they might take possession of the line, and that he would make everything right afterwards. He said he should be glad to see the Company making money. Cross-examined by Mr Button —That was about a week before the Governor came up. I whs in court for two or three minutes when Mr Edgar gave his evidence. lam sure that Edgar was present several times during meetings of the directors. Henry Griffiths, examined by Mr Rees —l am manager of the Pioneer Water-race afc the Kanieri. Our race runs over the tramway. I remember that cutting was broken through on 31st December; Ido not remember when that cutting was finished for the rails to be laid. They seemed to be working hard at the cutting. Cross-examined by Mr Button—Juckes was idle for some time, waiting for keys. Ido not know when the last eleepers came down for the tramway. Ec-examined —l could not say whether Juckes was detained through the cutting not being finished. Benjamin Osborne, examined by Mr Haavey—l am one of the Directors of the Kanieri tramway. At a meeting of the Directors, shortly after the Governor's visit, Mr Edgar expressed a wish to see the line opened, as he was as much interested as any other shareholder. He said that if anything was found not to be satisfactory by the engineer he would make it all right afterwards. Cross-examined by Mr South—l believe that meeting was on the 14th January; I jjy-ld not say whether |ifcj was before or after

the G-overnor's visit. lam speaking from memory, and I expect it it wilL be in the minute book. James Alexander Bonar, examined by Mr Sees — I am a Director of the Kanievi Tramway. I was not at a meeting just before or after the Governor's visit. I believe on one occasion Mr Edgar gave a verval consent to our bringing some fascines down the line. We were not satisfied with the manner in which the work was being performed. I hare been present on several occasions when Mr Edgar was present. He said when fault was found that he would alter it. By the Foreman — We have had official reports from the engineer during the progress of the work — I think they were in writing. This closed defendants' case. Mr Button applied for permission to re-call witnesses as to D. M'Leod's credibility as a witness, and also to show his partiality in offering to take a bribe. His Honor granted permission. Andrew Hope examined by Mr Button — I know Danial M'Deod ; I was at the Buller and saw him frequently there. I saw him in his hut, and had some conversation with hini about this case. That conversation I coin- [ mitted to writing the next morning (27th May). Dan told me that if Edgar and Bob did not give him LlO 8s they would lose the lawsuit. I asked him if he would commit perjury ? — He said there were ways of doing it without committing perjury. He could make the case go either way, and would do so if the amount was not paid. Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — He sairl LlO 8s was in dispute between Edgar and him — I did not pnt that down. I did not know that the bridge lie built was longer than he contracted to build. He did not say if he came to give his evidence it would damage Edgar and my brother. I said, " Well, Dan ! that is worth minding — I shall take a note of that." He said, " Well, Mr Mack ! you can do j that if you like." John Dawson, examined by Mr Button, deposed that he had a conversation with Daniel M'Leod behind the Eobert Burns Hotel, that was about a week after the Kanieri contract was finished. Speaking about the company having; no money, and not likely to pay the contractor. Dan said if it came to a law suit, there was money to be made out of it. The Foreman — Your Honor, before Counsel address the Court, the jury would like to adjourn for a short time. His Honor — Well, I hardly know; I do object to these frequent adjournments. The Foreman — The jury wish only for a few minutes, they feel exhausted sitting so many hours cramped up on hard, uncomfortable seats. His Honor — But I have to sit here too. The Foreman — Yes, but your Honor has a soft, well-stuffed seat; not like the jury who have to sit on a hard narrow boai'd. His Honor— Would retiring to your room for a short time do gentlemen ? The Foreman — The jury feel it to be absolutely necessary to get out of the atmosphero of the Court House, if only for a few minutes. It is most exhausting sitting so long without change. ! His Honor — I can sympathise with the jury, and have no doubt they would like to breathe a little fresh air, but the same applies to me. It has been stated in the newspapers, and you know newspapers never tell lie 3, that I have been very ill, and yet here, I am sitting as long as you gentlemen. Mr Button — Counsel on both sides would be glad of a shart adjournment before addressing the jury. His Honor — As counsel wish it I will grant an adjournment of quarter of an hour. And, gentlemen of the jury, I wish, and indeed it ia my duty to keep the source of justice not only pure but unsuspected, when you leave the court, gentlemen, keep together as much as you can. I cannot grant any more of these adjournments, for if I give them to a special jury I shall have petty juries applying for them, and a bad precedent will have been established. The Court then adjourned for a quarter of au hour. Mr Harvey summed up the evidence on the part [oi the defendants, and stated that the plaintiffs had not made out that, although, he had performed his contract in its entirety, yet as the declaration had been amended, the jury could if they chose award him. such compensation as they thought the work he had executed enf itled-him to receive. The learned Counsel th<;n reviewed the evidence, and said that if the jury contrasted the evidence on i the {part of the plaintiffs, with that offered I on the part of the defendant, he thought that they would arrive at the conclusion that the line had been constructed in a'most unworkmanlike manner, and not in accordance with the contract. It was in evidence that L7OO j had been paid on account, and he argued that { the certificates given by the Engineer, were only certificates for work, which the contractor had done properly. He contended that the j extra work had never been authorised on the part of the Company, and that the charges j for the same were excessive. Then as to the j delay which plaintiff alleged to have taken place through defendants not supplying the materials, he would state that there were always plenty of materials on the line, and he contended that if the company delivered the materials at any portion of the line, it was sufficient to satisfy the contract, and that no tenable claim whatever could be mado for the detention. The learned Counsel said — that after hearing the evidence of Mr Bonar and other witnesses, he believed that the jury would arrive at the conclusion that Mr Edgar did authorise the company to take possession of the line, and promised that he would rectify all defective work. Then, too, the timber used by the contractor was not according to the specification; and, further, it had not been proved that the contractor had paid any of his sub-contrac-tors for delay — a delay which was not occasioned by the company, but was plaintiff's own fault, for the Kanieri cutting was shown not to be finished until the month of January; and he concluded by stating that the payments which had been made to the | plaintiff, and the amount he owed ?o the company for liquidated damages, would fully satisfy all that was due to the plaintiff; indeed, it was a question whether he had not been overpaid. Mr Button replied on the whole case, contending that plaintiff was entitled to recover what the work was worth . He argued that as plaintiff had been paid L7OO progress payment, he was entitled to be paid for more, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover something, although the con tract might not have, been carried out in all its minutia; it was perfectly plain that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for what work he had done over and above tho progress payments. Let the jury look at the evidence of Mr Q-ale. and they would find that that gentleman, who had had largo experience in railways and tramways, valued the work at LI3OO. He contended that the jury must, on reviewing the evidence, arrive at the conclusion that the work had been passed by Mr Frew. It was proved, too, i that the time when the plaintiff gave the directors leave to use tho lino was the 14th January to bring down the fascines, and not at the time when on the G-overnor's visit, the directors took possession of the line. He pointed out that levels, if given at all, had been very vaguely given, and ifc was, therefore, unfair to the contractor to charge him with making deviations from those levels. Then as

to the embankments. Mr Anthony himself, one of defendant's witnesses, declared that they were perfectly safe. It had been distinctly proved that the plaintiff had been greatly delayed in completing his work by the company failing to supply fcbo contractor with materials when and where he required them, according to the contract. The company refused to allow for such delay, and yet they I claimed for liquidated damages, because the work was not finished in the time mentioned in the contract when that very delay was occasioned by their own acts. His Honor, in summing up, said that ihc counsel for tho plaintiff had put the case very fairly and broadly before the juvy. He had admitted that, as regards the contract prices, the defendants wove entitled to some reduction. The whole question on that point was as to the quantum of that reduction ; in fact he (His Honor) entirely agreed with Mr Button in the way he has stated the law. The question for the jury to decide on that point was, what was the amonnt of plaintiff's claim, and having determined that, what amount of reduction defendants were entitled to. His Honor then proceeded to speak with reference to the embankments, and with regard to the viaducts, he said that much coinplainfc had been made that birch had been used instead of red pine. Now he observed that when the engineer, Mr Frew, was asked whether he had authorised tho use of birch instead of red pine, the answer was, by no means certain, for Mr Frew said that he did not recollect having given any such authority. It appeared, however, that in one of the viaducts (No. 3) there was a deficiency in the planking, and this was proved by Mr Anthony, who gave his evidence in a remarkably clear and straightforward manner, and who said that he had measured the deficiency and found it to be 640 feefc. The bolts too did not appear to have been very well screwed up. This most extraordinary contract had been tukeu without any stipulation as to the gradients, and it had been assumed that ifc was the duty of the contractor to construct the viaducts according to the levels furnished linn. Whether the contractor always stuck to the Engineer's levels they could not tell, because he (His Honor) did not think they could receive Daniel M'Leod's evidence on that point. The question as to the amouufc of reduction to be allowed {'or, as defendants alleged, ballasting with clay instead of gravel, and not taking the tramway to the right terminus afc tho Kanieri end, was entirely a question for the jury. Then as to the second point, viz., the charge of L 324. for extras. Now, a very important item in that, was the charge for three exti'a bridges, and it had been forcibly argued by Mr Harvey that the longtitudinal section did not profess to show any bridges at all, but that the contractor was supposed to erect as many bridges as would carry the tramway. This part of the contractor's claim did not appear to him (His Honor) to ,be very well founded, and he therefore thought the jury would do well to reject the extras for bridges, and proceed to consider as to what amount the contractor was entitled to receive for the other extras. He now came to another question, viz., the plaintiff's claim of L 237 for damages for delay, and upon this point there was a great conflict of evidence. On the plaintiff's part, a whole army of platelayers had declai'ed that they had to wait for sleepers, rails, and keys ; and even Mr Ashmore admitted that some rails were delivered at a late date, and that the contractor had to wait for Keys. Upon this point a controversy had arisen, whether it was the duty of the defendants to supply these materials afc the end of the terminus, or to deliver them where they were l-equired by the contractor. He had now ran through the whole of the plaintiffs claim, and to this there was a contra claim set up by the defendants of LlO a-day liquidated damages for the time which had elapsed since tho date when according to the agreement plaintiff should have completed his contract to the time when he gave up. Of course should the jury find that the defendants bad occasioned damage to the plainliff through not supplying him with the necessary materials, then this set off would not have to be taken into consideration. Then defendants pleaded payment to the amount of L7OO, and this was admitted by the plaintiff. Should they determine to find for the plaintiff they would have to consider the amount to be awarded under three heads: — 1. The amount under the original contract work. 2. The amount for extras. And, 3. The amount for detention . The jury retired afc 7.30, and afc 8.35 p.ni. came into Court with a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages L 636, viz., L 530 due on the original contract, L 46 for extras, and L6O for detention, &c. The Court adjourned sine die.