Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

LAW COURTS.
LOCAL COURT—ADELAIDE.
(Continued from yesterday.)
FULL JURISDICTION.
[Mr. J. P. Stow, J.P., here took Mr. "Wigley's
seat on the Bench.!
J. S. Yottlton v. Local Board of Main
Boads (Central District).—£81 7s. 8d. money
due for work done, materials provided, and
breach of agreement. Mr. W. It. Wigley for the
plaintiff; Mr. Gwynne for the defendants, who
pleaded that they were not indebted as alleged,
and that before action was brought they satis
fied the plaintiff's claim by payment. The
plaintiff, who is a contractor, said he tendered
to do some metalling, &c., for the defendants on
the main road near Willunga. He signed the
contract on January 24, 1876, and was to com
plete the work on October 31 in the same year.
He finished it on October 7. The delivery and
spreading of some half-inch metal was included
in it. He was to deliver the metal by June 1,
and spread it by July 31. After signing the
contract he waited for McGuinness, the Over
seer under the Surveyor for the District, to
mark out the spot where he was to deposit the
stone for breaking. Finding he had not mea
sured the place, he wrote to McGuinness on the
subject, but without success. He afterwards
ascertained that McGuinness was in gaol. He
then deposited the stone on the side of the road
at a place he thought best for the convenience
of spreading. At that time he had entered into
a contract with a person named Bennett to cart
the metal from the quarry, and had also
employed men to do the work. He kept the
men at work to save time and expense. In
consequence of this delay in indicating the spot
for him to deposit the metal, he was allowed 23
days extension of time for delivering. There
was another delay in measuring the metal after
it was broken and stacked, and the Board
allowed him another extension of 14 days for
spreading the metal. He finished the spreading
on the 21st of August, within the time specified
by the Board, which included the extension
given him. The delay in measuring was caused
by McGuinness being in gaol; and a man named
Wright was afterwards, sent by the Board to
take McGuinness's place. Wright measured
the stone before it was spread. He did not,
however, require the 14 days that was given
him in response to his application for a second
extension. Was fined £20 for being behind time
with the delivery and spreading of the metal.
Made a claim of £50 for not heing allowed to do
some blinding on the road which he was to
have done in accordance with a schedule of
prices he had given to the Board. He did 39
chains of blinding at 12s. per chain. It cost
him 6s. a chain. He consequently got 6s. per
chain profit. About 108§ chains then remained
to be done, but the Board took the work out of
his hands on September 9, and the Board put
other men on to do . the work under the
superintendence of one of their officers. He
protested with Mr. Wright on September 14,
and Mr. Wright turned pale—(laughter)—and
stopped the men, but on the 30th of the same
month the men resumed their work again. The
men did their blinding similar to the work he
had done. He estimated his loss at 6s. per
chain on the 108 chains at £32 8s. He also
claimed several pounds for extra work, some of
which the Board had admitted. He had been
before the Board, and they offered to remit his
fine of £20 and give him £4 odd for the extras,
but he refused to accept it. Cross-examined—
Mr. Hargrave, the Superintending-Siirveyor for
the District, told me th^t the Board had granted
me the extension of time that I had asked for.
The stone was stacked some time on the road
before it was measured, and during that time
the cattle had disturbed some of the heaps, and
he bad to restack them. The stone was finally .
passed by-the Board on July 20, and then there
was a dispute as to the measurement. The
Board's man who measured it'made the quantity
25 yards less than he. Finished spreading the
stone on August 31. It should have been out,
according to contract, on July 31. He was 31
days behind the original - contract time; but
having 23 days extension of time,, and being
employed eight days in picking 38§ chains of
extra work, "he considered that he was not
behind time; ' Witnesses having been examined
in support of the plaintiffs statements, ¥m.
Wright, the overseer for the contract referred
to, was called, and said the plaintiff was on the
first part of the contract, that of delivering the
stone, 50 days behind time. It shonld have been
delivered and broken on June 1, but instead of
that it was not done until July 21. It ought to
have been all spread by July 31. It was not ready
for measurement until July 21. The plaintiff
commenced spreading the metal on July 25, and
the spreading was completed on September 13;
He said the plaintiff had been paid for the work
he did, and that what the plaintiff considered
as extras were not' such/but were included in
the specification and the contract. Cross-ex
amined—He could not swear positively as to the
date on whichthe spreading was completed. It
might have ajl ljeen spread - before September.
H. S. Davys,r Secretary to:the defendants, "pro;
duced the-minute book of the Board, containing
an entry giving particulars of ah-i'nterview with
the Board and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was
then offered a remission of the' fine if he would
accept that in settlement of his demand. This
was offered with a view to avoid litigation. The
plaintiff would not, however, accept that offer.
Thomas McGuinness stated that he had the
road marked out for the Btono as soon as he
could after being asked to do so. He
only received one letter from the plaintiff
requesting him to do so. Peter McCaffrey
said he marked out the places where the
stone should be deposited about February 15.
He was employed by McGuinness. The counsel
on either side having addressed the Court, judg
ment was given for the plaintiff £21.
H. Exoppeb v. Cabl Goes—£65 16s. 3d.,
balance of account for chaff. Mr. Wadey ap
peared for the plaintiff. The defendant, who
conducted his own case, pleaded that some of
the goods for which he was charged had not
been delivered. The matter was fully gone
into and judgment was given for the plaintiff
for £4813s. 3d. without costs,'[that amount being
the value of the goods of which delivery was
proved.
The Court then adjourned till June 6. The
last cause on the list — that of Yase v.
Aufderheide—was set down to be heard on that
date.
$