THE OMOTUMOTU ROAD CONTRACT.

West Coast Times, Issue 2462, 21 August 1873, Page 2

THE OMOTUMOTU ROAD CONTRACT.

(FROM THE GBET RIVER ARGUS AUGUST 19). Mr Dobson, C.E., as mutually appointed arbitrator in the dispute between the Government and Mr O'Driscoll, heard further evidence yesterday in' the ante-

cr 's Halt. The evidence

turday was that of Mr Wylde and Mr Cooper, both called by' Mr Newton on behalf of the contractor. Yesterday Mr Newton called John Green, the contractor's overseer, Thomas Griffen and Larry Swift, laborers, and Mr O'Driscoll. Mr Wylde was also re-examined. By Mr South, Crown Solicitor, the only witnesses called were Mr Geisow, District Engineer, and J ohn Nightingale, overseer of works, The statements of the last two witnesses were substantially that made by Mr South, and he declined to sum up. Mr Newton then replied on the whole case, and the arbitration closed. The award, it is to be | presumed, will be made in the usual way, in writing, when the arbitrator has con■idered his determination, The evidence is too voluminous for us to publish iv the present number, but ,we give a resume of the case for either side, as stated by the Counsel. Of Mr Newton's opening statement on Saturday, sufficient has already been given to indicate the matter of arbitration. We now give such portions of it as relate to the claim of the contractor, and the alleged grounds for the same. . . . Mr Newton and his principal evidence ■was that of Mr Wylde, who had succeeded a man named Rawlingß in the inspection of the works. Mr Wylde bad large discretionary powers; there appeared to have been ho complaint; and Mr O'Connor, the then District Engineer, w«is several times over the work, certificates were given by Mr Wylde, and payments were made by the Government nearly up to the full percentage— some prima facie evidence that the work was sufficiently performed. On Mr Geisow succeeding Mr O'Connor as District Engineer, he found fault with certain details of the work, and it would be for Mr Geisow to give his reasons for doing so. AtferwardsMr Geisow asked for a report from Mr Wylde, mentioning the details in which he considered the work deficient. Mr Wylde sent in a report, and made certain variations from the specifications. In the first letter from Mr Geisow there was no complaint as to the metalling, and the stone used in the facing had been approved of by Mr O'Cranor, he considering it sufficient, although Mr Wylde was at the time of a different opinion. With regard to the metallinjr, Mr Wylde reported that the requisite quantity had been put on, but some of it was not of the specified size, and on the completion of the work Mr Wylde went over it and agreed that the Work had been done except the metalling. After an interval, during which there had been two days of inclement weather, Mr Geisow found that the water-tables required cleaning, aad found fault as to the metalling — both as to the size and quantity. He (Mr Newton") would show that a sufficient quantity had been put on— that Mr Wylde had ascertained this by the regular use of a quage — aud that Mr Geisow had taken no means to ascertain whether the proper quantity had been, put on or not. Subsequently a person named Nightingale was sent up, and, without making any joint inspection with Mr Wylde, he alleged that there were only five inches of metal on the road. ' Some months afterwards Mr Wylde, with two others cut trenches in the road and ascertained that instead of there being only 9 inches there were from 12in to 14in of metal, and they contended that that amount of work which had been done by the Government was altogether unnecessary to complete the contract. There appeared to be £1033 paid by the Government since the work had been taken over. He would be prepared to prove what was the cost of material, and that to that cost only was the Government entitled. The contractor was perfectly willing to break the metal to the specified Bize, and went so far as to commence, but he could not without closing the road, and the Government did not wish to do so. No objection had been made as to the time taken to complete the contract, but in October Mr O'Connor wrote, saying that unless it was finished within one month, it would be closed. During that tune some difficulty arose with Mr Coe, for which the contractor was not responsible, and this delayed him for a month, but he was willing to complete his contract, if not stopped. Whatever cost the Government had been at apart from that, in maintaining the road, and the cost of cleaning the watertables, the contractor might be liable for, but he maintained that in every other respect the contract hafl been completed. Mr South, Crown Solicitor, opened for the Government by stating that in this case the District Engineer had been compelled to put in force the 12th condition of the contract against the contractor by reason of the inefficient performance by him of the works on the Greymouth and Omotumotu road. Under that condition if the contractor should in the opinion of the engineer, fail to make such progress with the works as the engineer should deem sufficient to "assure their completion within the specified time, or should use bad or insufficient materials, or indeed execute any work in an imperfect manner, and failed to rectify any such cauce of complaint for seven days after notice, the Minister of Public Works might, on notice to the contractor, determine the contract, and the Minister might apply the balance of any contract moneys to the completion of the work. The District Engineer found, on inspection of the road in question, that the road had been most imperfectly constructed. Tho contract time for completion having been on the 30th June 1872, the contractor had had every latitude shewn him. On the 15th when Mr Geisow inspected the load, he found the culverts not tarred, the water-tables uncleared, and the proper metal not put on the road, and he informed tiio contractor that unless these were remedied he could not pass the road with hia certificate. These the contractor promised to make good, but as he (Mr South) was instructed, he should be able to prove he never did. Further, the contractor, by advertisement in the Grey River Argus closed the road for traffic on and after the 4th February, stating therein that no traffic would be allowed on this road after that day, and on that day wrote to the District Engineer stating that he considered the road had been finished and off his hands. The metalling had been most imperfect, and although the contractor had the option, under the conditions of the contract, of metalling •with 2in sized stone, in diameter 9in or with sin of stone pitching, and that it would be supposed in a faithful working of the contract the soft places would have been so pitched, and the remainder gravelled of the required size, yet it had nos been attempted to be set' up that any work of this kind had been performed. Then again as to the evidence of Mr Cooper and Mr Whylde contraed Mr Cooper had deposed to an average of 10£ in of metal on the road throughout, and Mr Wylde to 6in having been put on by Mr Giesow, therefore when the District Engineer took the road from the contractor

i here were 4 Jin «f metal on. He (the Crown Solicitor) contended that the District Engineer had simply acted in the performance of a duty by taking the road out of the contractor's hands. The interpretation of these contracts by the Government and the District Engineer on the non- efficient performance of works such as these was of great impoitance, to the Government, in reference not only to this particular case, but generally, as well as to the public at large' and he thought he should be able to show that there was not aijiy amount coming to the contractor, as hiubeen contended for by his learned friend on the other side.