1.—7
32
We do not at this moment reply to your letter, but, seeing that Mr. Higginson is in Wellington, we suggest that he be put into communication with us in regard to the Clutha Platelaying Contract. We feel sure that on all questions of fact there could not be much difference between us, and evidence could be taken for the purpose of settling matters upon which legal difficulties might arise. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, We have, &c, Wellington. John Beogden a.kd Sons.
The Undee-Seceetaey for Public Woee:s to Messrs. Beogden and Sons. Gentlemen, —■ Public Works Office, Wellington, 4-th January, 1882. I. am directed by the Acting Minister for Public Works to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date referring to the Clutha Platelaying claim. When the pleadings in the case of Smyth v. Queen come to issues of fact, the Government will consider the course which should be followed to have the facts correctly ascertained, but at present the Minister is advised that the judgment of the Court of Appeal lately delivered has declared your replications to some of the Government pleas to be bad in law, and that, until you have decided what course you will take consequent on that judgment, it is impossible to say what issues of fact will really arise. Under these circumstances the Government must postpone consideration of the suggestions made by you in the letter under reply. I have, &c, John Knowles, Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, Wellington. Under-Secretary for Public Works.
Messrs. Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Ministee for Public Woeks. Sie,— Wellington, 6th January, 1882. We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, referring to the Clutha Platelaying claim. We are advised that the pleadings in this case, which, so far as the suppliant is concerned, are complete, disclose what are the issues of facts between the parties; and that the next step, unless the respondent makes an application to amend the pleas, is the formal settlement by the Judge of the issues of facts for trial. My suggestion was made with the view of saving time, and possibly obviating the necessity for this formal proceeding. We have, &c, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, John Beogden and Sons. Wellington.
Messrs; Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Minister for Public Woeks. Sie,— Wellington, 10th January, 1882. In your letter of the 22nd ultimo you request us to state what method we can suggest by which our claims can be settled otherwise than in the manner and within the time specially appointed by the Legislature for the purpose. With regard to the method, we suggest the course which all ordinary business people would adopt, and which, in the end, will have practically to be adopted, viz., a comparison and inquiry between any person you may appoint and ourselves, so as to eliminate from the accounts all items about which there can be no possible reasonable dispute. As to many of the items in dispute, the discussion would no doubt diminish them by showing that we were wrong, or would establish them by convincing your appointee that the Government were wrong; and as to the remainder, we are agreeable either to refer them to the Judges of the Supreme Court in their respective districts, or some other arbitrator, or to a jury. On our part, we are quite prepared to waive all technicalities or formalities, only stipulating that, if the Government claim to correct any measurements or quantities of work done and previously certified .and paid for, they should be called upon to show a prima facie case, and bear the whole cost of our witnesses in support if they fail in establishing their claim. If they dispute only the principle of the payment, on the ground that it should be included in the contract price, we are content that the ordinary rule as to costs should apply. We should then expect the Government to dispense with technicalities and formalities on their side, and that the fact that the works were ordered and executed and accepted and enjoyed by the Government, and the reasonableness of the prices, should be the questions to be settled. There will be most probably some question of interpretation of clauses of the contract, which could be settled by an appeal to the Supreme Court. If we have omitted anything in this proposal which ought to be added, so as to give the fullest and fairest inquiry into the facts, it is unintentional on our part, and we will willingly consider any other suggestion. On the second point, as to the time specially appointed by the Legislature within which these questions can be settled, we defer our reply until we see your answer to Mr. Cave's letter of the 19th ultimo. We beg again to observe that our object is to get at the facts, and to terminate, in the speediest manner, the legal technicalities and fallacies which have hitherto obscured them. With this view we will endeavour to co-operate with the Government in any way they may suggest, so as to save time and expense to all parties. We are quite prepared to compromise for a specific sum, and to discuss the terms and mode of payment; but, before putting any such proposition forward, we must be informed whether the Government are prepared to deal with the matter in that way. We have, &c, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, John Beogden and Sons. Wellington. P.S. Mr. Brogden will very shortly return to England, and it is therefore necessary to lose no time in replying to this letter.
Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.
By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.
Your session has expired.