H.—7

80

1603. Found fault with the concrete that was put in the south wing?— Yes. 1604. Did I side with Mr. Brindley or with you in regard to the dispute about that'?— You sided with Mr. Brindley, because it was condemned. 1605. Do you know whether it was at my request or Mr. Brindley's that that concrete was removed ? —1 believe that it was at your own request that it was removed. 1606. By me, acting on Mr. Brindley's information?— Yes. I think we had it in writing. 1607. That concrete was removed, as a matter of fact ?—Yes, a portion of it was. 1608. Who stopped it being further removed ? —Mr. Brindley himself. 1609. That was not done by me ?—No ; you were not there. 1610. As a matter of fact, you swear that the concrete found fault with was removed from the building?—A portion of it was, as I have already stated. 1611. With the exception of the portion which was retained by Mr. Brindley, it was removed? —Yes. That was hard, and Mr. Brindley thought it was good enough. 1612. We will now take the gable. You know the gables referred to there in Mr. Blair's statement are the gables in that part of the building where toothings are left out, indicating that at a future time the extensions of the building are to be continued there ? —Yes. 1613. As a matter of fact, when these extensions are built these gables will be removed ? —That is what I was led to believe. 1614. So that in the present portion of the building there will be a continuous space in the roof—no brickwork will be left above the line of the upper ceiling ?—Yes. 1615. You concluded that you would be paid extra for that ?—Yes. 1616. Did I allow you that as an extra P—l cannot say now, speaking from memory; but I know that we always claimed it. 1617. You do not know of your own knowledge that I disallowed these gables as extras ?—No. 1618. But you claimed to be paid for them as extras?— Yes. 1619. You are not prepared to say that I did not disallow them as extras ?—No. 1620. Or that I struck them off from your claim of extras ?—I am not aware. 1621. Those are the three points which Mr. Blair has referred to in his statement—the concrete, the bricks, and the gable. In all cases when there was a dispute about bricks, did I decide with you or Mr. Brindley ?—With Mr. Brindley I should imagine, because you condemned the bricks. 1622. In other words, along with Mr. Brindley I condemned them?— Yes. 1623. Is that your answer ? —Yes. 1624. Were there any other disputes of any kind, or of any material kind, which ever occurred during the whole course of the works at Seacliff, so far as you remember, except these three points ?— No ; I think those were the lot. 1625. You say there were no others ? —None that I recollect. 1626. If there were any others, I wish you to remember them, and state them now. You say that you do not know of any other disputes between Mr. Brindley and yourself ?—Oh! I can recollect lots of disputes. 1627. Of any material character referring to the works?— Yes: there was one dispute as to whether we should put cement upon different heights all round the building and the ambulatory-piers. 1628. Well, we will take that point. When that matter was under discussion did I decide with you or with Mr. Brindley?—l cannot say. All I know is that the cement was done. 1629. It comes to the same thing. He wished it to be done?— Yes :to be built of cement. 1630. Are they built of cement ?—Yes. 1631. The Chairman.] What walls do you refer to? —The ambulatory-piers and, at different levels, so many courses round the whole block. 1632. At the level of the foundations? —Eight up to the top. He ordered five or six courses at a time to that height. 1633. Mr. Laivson.] The ambulatory-piers, you say, were one instance?— Yes. They were entirely built of cement. 1634. Throughout the whole building ?—Yes. 1635. You put in layers of brick and cement throughout the whole building?— Yes. 1636. These were not specified at all ?—No. 1637. Nor were they charged for as an extra?—l do not recollect, but I know that it is not specified. 1638. Was that done as additional strengthening to the building?—l expect that that was the intention. 1639. And you say that that was not included in the specification ?—No, it was not. 1640. That was done throughout the building ?—Yes; it was done throughout the entire building. 1641. Mr. Blair.] You had lots of disputes with Mr. Brindley?—Yes. 1642. Do you swear that on every occasion in which there was some question in dispute between you and Mr. Brindley, that Mr. Lawson backed up Mr. Brindley to the letter ?—lf it could be claimed under the specifications he did. Of course there were some disputes in which he could not side with Mr. Brindley. 1643. Then Mr. Lawson did not back up Mr. Brindley to the letter of the specification on every occasion?—He did on every occasion that Mr. Brindley was in the right. 1644. On every occasion in which there was a misunderstanding?—He always sided with Mr. Brindley in the misunderstandings when Mr. Brindley was in the right. 1645. That is not the way I want it. On every occasion in which there was a misunderstanding between you and Mr. Brindley did Mr. Lawson back up Mr. Brindley ?—Yes. I have been telling you that he did. 1646. On every occasion?—On every occasion when Mr. Brindley's reading of the specifications was right. You cannot expect a man to side with what he knows to be wrong.