S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 44, 21 February 1905, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before Mr S. B. McCarthy, S.M.) Snrlling EroF. t. Bell.—Tie case of Sneilins Bros., builders, v. J»hn Bell, claim for £iH IS/, balance dae for the building of a troase in Inkwinan-street. and n counter c!iiim for £116 12/6 for alterations alleged to have boon neccssaty, was continued tfcis morning. Snelling Bros, were represeut'ed by Mr Cotter, ami Jlr M. McGregor represented Ball. Several builders and ciirjtenters wrre called, who stated that they considered that the work h-ad been tarried out in an onworkma-niifco ami unsatisfactory manner. Evidence was afeo given by William Bell, who said he had heard disputes between his fatter and the contractors as to the class of timber h>cing used in ►he erection of the house. To' Sir Cotter: Witness said his father Intended to supervise the work himself. Uobert Cameron Sneliinjr, one of the plaintiffs, called by Mr Cotter, said ho had had m> previous knowledge of Mr Slator before taknijf tlie "contract. When the tenders came in it was found that the witness' tender was second lowest. The fizrcres, however, were too high for Mr Bell, and Mr Slator asked that they be reduced, the lowest tenderer having fijst preference. The lowest tenderer withdrew his tender, and witness re- ■ dueeii theirs by £4 15/ and took the contract. There was no arrangement that Mr Bo,'] should be his owa architect. Mr Slator condemned some timber that they had on the gr-ound. an ,i the condemned portions were discarded. All the timber nsed h*d been in terms of the specifications. Soofi second cjass. Evidence was jciven by A. L. Ferneyhnngh, architect, to' the rffpet that the house had been built according to specification, and in some instances Snc-llings had don* more work than was provided for in the specifications. — .Tames Slator. engineer, architect and draughtsman, said thnt Snellinj; Bros, obtained the contract by reducing their tanner, tlie lowest tenderer havin? withdrawn when askerl to do so. Bell had cot him to draw pinna for a honse for which he wanted to pay £50. Witness told him it could not be don» for the money and ev'ntoaiiy agreed to draw plan* for £1 5/, and also to superintend the work fnr an additional £2. He had not received the £2. bnt he did not want it Bell could keep it. -If he is a poor man." continned witness. "I can afford it. I was a good natnred ass. as I have been in a good many cases." — Corroborative evidence was ?iven by H. W. Snellinjr. one of the plnintiCTs. — In gmnjr judgment Mr McCarthy said that it —ps clear that Kell had wanted the plaintiffs to bnild a second class lionse, and he. therefore, could not exp«ct them to finish it fu a first class manner, .ip if they -were paid for first class work. .In the early part of the erection of the building, the defendant dismissed the architect, nnd became hisown. He conld not complain, therefore if for the purposes of the case the Court treated him as his own architect. Defendant wonld have to pay the plaintiffs, as it was due under the coutract Judgment was Sii-ea for the plaintiffs for the full amount with costs.