SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 532, 12 June 1909, Page 15

SUPREME COURT.

: THE HATAITAi BUILDING DISPUTE. \ His Honour Mr; Justice Sim heard,further ■ :y6sterday':in the ease, Duttou v. Brten,,claim for £283 6a. Id., alleged to bo ;th«;baj»nce due on a building contract, Mr. A. Dunn appeared for the plaintiff,; Harold i J .*;!!. Dutton, builder and contractor, Wei. ; liiijjitpui and Mr. A. Blair for the defendants,. Annie Broen and h«r husband,.Edward Potei Breen, marine:engineer, ".•'. >\ Plaintiff alleged;thafc ho:had entered-into an agreement vwith.plaintiß to build a. sixroomed house at Hatttitaij Tho building was commenced in; September last,: and in October a formal contract, was' signed. ; Plaintiff did.not; admit the deforidantsV, contention : that,,'in ;spite of .the contract,' the aotual arrangement was for plaintiff to bo paid only the'.oost.ofv material., and , and..bis ; wages as a carponter. When the action was begun, £351 6s. Bd. was due to plaintiff, but cwtain'recoveries sub-contractors' had re--.dnced'the amount .to £288 ps.,_ld.: Defendants, had never claimed possession,. but had inspected tho house: and expressed satisfaction -with it. 'They did not.dispute' that the, hause .was practically except.'for . some,/small sterns/ but .th'b'y. Said that the builder had wrongfully remained in possession, and thoowner bad never taken-poases-sion at "the time the;fire rendered it:jmpos-. aible for;the plaintiff to; recover. .Plaintiff, however, declared that 'tho' building had been completed-in January,- and/ even if it wore .not': .an : entire,,.contract,'.; defendants had , waived \their. rights,/ because they .had made arijoffer of £100. \ Defendant contended that the contract was an; entire contract, and that plaintiff must show;-that 'he 'had absolutely completed the contract, before ho .had any right-to recover; The premises having been, ..destroyed' by fire. before completion (so defendant; alleged), either put the,plaintiff ,in the', position of .having to complete the contract'.or discharged both parties from the contract..'Defendant'alloged that the building .was. incomplete 'in \that,; inter alia,, it had only two chimneys'instead of three,' and thess were built without regard for tho plans arid;specifications. : : ■■■':;:.;j,-;, : .-:'/..;./.!■• ; ;;.-;•.■•', Evidence was concluded! and counsel addressed tho Court. J ;His, Honour, reserved ■■judgment.v.: ;. ; :■'■'■■ ' The. Court was then adjourned until ten o'clock on Mondaymorning.'' <'■.'■" '