1.—7

28

Messrs. Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Minister for Public Woees. Sib,— Grey Street, Wellington, 11th August, 1881. We have the honor to refer to your letters of the 3rd June and 13th July last, as to the further Petitions of Eight forwarded to you by us. Seeing that the decision just given by his Honor Mr. Justice Eichmond has affirmed that we are right in our mode of procedure, we think that you cannot reasonably or justly withhold these further Petitions of Eight, and we beg to request that the Government will now advise the Governor to sign them. At the same time we are willing to agree that we shall delay taking any action under them until after the next sittings of the Court of Appeal have been held. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, We have, &c, Wellington. John Beogden and Sons.

Exteact from the New Zealand Times, of the 13th August, 1881. Messrs. Bror/den's Claims. Doubt existing as to the present position of the case of Brogden v. the Queen, in the Supreme Court, which came up on Wednesday, we publish the following: His Honor Mr. Justice Eichmond delivered judgment, dismissing with costs, the motion made on behalf of the Crown to stay the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court, under the Petition of Eight presented by the Messrs. Brogden, in which they claim a large sum for extra works, &c, in connection with their contract for the construction of the Invercargill—Mataura Eailway. The contention for the Crown upon the argument was that the petitioners are, by the terms of " The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872," bound to proceed under that Act, and not otherwise, to recover any moneys in respect of disputes or claims arising out of their contract. The affidavit filed in support of the motion stated that the moneys claimed by the petition were all claimed in respect of disputes under the contract. The affidavit filed for the petitioners, on the other hand, stated that a large part of the moneys was not the subject of such disputes. His Honor said : I have come to the conclusion that I ought to refuse the application to stay the proceedings, not {sic, read but) simply upon the ground that from the affidavits it does not appear as an admitted fact that the moneys claimed by the petitioner are claimed in respect of the disputes defined in clause 32 of the General Conditions of the contract. I decline on that ground to exercise my discretionary power to stay the proceedings at this stage ; but I purposely abstain from expressing any opinion upon the question whether the petitioners can proceed otherwise than under the Act of 1872, or upon any other questions raised in the argument. 1 dismiss this application with costs, the Crown to have two months' further time to plead. Mr. Bell asked for leave to appeal, which was granted, his Honor, however, expressing a doubt whether the Court of appeal would review his decision, the matter being one within the discretion of the Judge.

Alexandee Beogden, Esq., M.P., to the Hon. the Ministeb for Public Woeks. Sib,— Wellington, 15th August, 1881. I beg to refer you to a letter of the 11th instant, which I wrote in the name of the firm, as to the further Petitions of Eight which were forwarded to the Government by us. I shall be much obliged if you will inform me if lam to expect an answer. The bearer will wait for a reply. The Hon. John Hall, Acting Minister for Public Works, I have, &c, Wellington. Alex. Beogden.

The Undee-Seceetaby for Public Wobks to Messrs. Bkoqden and Sons. Gentlemen, — Public Works Office, Wellington, 16th August, 1881. I am directed by the Acting Minister for Public Works to inform you that, after consideration of your letter of the 11th instant, in which you request that the Government will now advise His Excellency the Governor to sign the Petitions of E'ght forwarded by you to the Minister on the Ist July last, the Government see no reason for altering the decision communicated to you in my letter of the 13lh July. The Government are advised that his Honor Mr. Justice Eichmond, in delivering his judgment upon the application to stay proceedings in your Petition of Eight upon the InvercargillMataura claim, rested his decision solely upon the conflict as to facts apparent on the affidavits, and expressly abstained from deciding the question whether you can prosecute claims founded on alleged disputes under your contracts with the Government otherwise than under "The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872." The Government are therefore unable to agree with your view that Mr. Justice Richmond's decision has affirmed that you are right in your mode of procedure. I have, &c, John Knowles, Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, Wellington. TJnder-Secretary for Public Works.

Messrs. Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Ministeb for Public Wobks. Sir,— "Wellington, 18th August, 1881. We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, in which you inform us that the Government see no reason for altering the decision communicated on the 13th July last. W^ have no wish to enter into a controversy in which, while we are convinced you are in error, we should fail to alter your views; but the true result of the judgment of his Honor Mr, Justice Eichinond is seen in the fact that you have failed to restrain our proceeding with our suit, and we are now waiting the next step to be taken by the Crown Solicitor. We think, however, that you will admit that we have a right to ask you, and to have your reply, as to the course the Government intend to pursue with the other Petitions of Eight in the event of the