Oarvbn v. Thb Mokihinui Ooal Minixg Co., Limited. This wa« a claim for £271 12» 6d for labor done, against which the defendants h»TO ft j counter claim of 425 1 10s for delays in carrying out contracts. Mr Poll appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defend** ants. Mr Fell ©pened the case at considerable length going* minutely through the con ditions of the contracts entered into by the plaintiff, and after speaking for an hour and a half he called Stephen Garven, who Bworn, ssid ; I am a contractor at Weatport. On the Slat of May, ' 1887, 1 entered into a contract with the def end ' ant Company, to construct certain railway > works, and began work at the end of the month. ■ (Witness then went into details regarding the • contraot.) Mr O'Conor is chairman of the I Company. I met him in Weatport in July, 1 and he asked if I had the oontraot finished. i I said " No. Why don't yoa give me eome I moDey. I mast hnve money to do the work." i I had previously applied for progress pay ' ment. I got money later on, about 70 per • cent on tha amount of work done. I did extra work with the approval of the Inspector to the amount of about 61 yards of walling. I i should have done the whole work by the 21st of August. I had only half a chain to do to finish up at that date. They did not com plain of this delay. I got the letter saying there was to bs some alteration, whioh I said would be extra work'. There was to be a big diversion of the line of wall, and this after I had spent money en the original lino. The Company built a shoot for facilitating the handling of ooal ; and used my line and plant in constructing the same, and placed their poles and timber all about the road ; whioh hindered ms to a oertain extent. I almost prayed them to pay me" so muoh that L»could bring the case before the Distriot Oourt, instead of ooming here to tlie Supreme Court, Cross examined by Mr Pitt. I began work before the contraot was signed. I applied for a certificate for progress payment. 