LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1076, 15 March 1911, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. BUILDINC CONTRACT DISPUTE. A DOUBLE ACTION. ' The claims of certain sub-contractors concerned in tho erection of a couplo of houses .at Hataitai were further investigated by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday. In February, 1910, William Heber Brightwell let a contract to Georgo Johann and V. J. Jorgensen for tho erection of two dwellinghotises in MaUi Road,,. Hataitai, for the sum of £1167. After doing the greater part of the work, and receiving certain progress payments, Johann and Jorgensen, in June of the sanio year, abandoned their contract. Rrightwell's architect, H. T. Johns, then wrote to the subcontractors, suggesting that they should stand in tho contractors shoes and complete the work. Most of them fell in with the proposal, and accepted - a tender to finish tho job for £76. Af-ter-this .arrangement had been carried out, disputes arose as to the moneys due to the sub-contractors out of the balance of the' sum named in the original: contract. -The-disputes were put into the. form of two civil cases, which wero brought into the Supreme Court, and heard jointly. ' In one case four of the sub-contractors who had joined in the arrangement referred to above, namely, Easson, Limited, timber merchants, Charles W. Martin, plumber, William Nicol, painter, and William Benson, bricklayer (all represented by tho Hon. T. W. Hislop), claimed from the owner of the property £619 4s. and interest. In the other case, the firm of M'Leod, Weir and Hopkirk, timber merchants (who were not a party to tho arrangement for completing tho job), sued the sanio defendant for £201 13s. lid., balance of their account for timber and materials. ' These plaintiffs were represented by Mr. A. L. Herdman. . The defendant, William Heber Brightwell (represented by Mr. A. W. Blair) expressed his.readiness to pay the balance of tho contract moneys to whomsoever it was clue. He calculated the amount to be £424 12s. 7t1., and he handed that sum into Court in respect of both actions. He averred that there liad been an understanding that M'Leod, Weir and Hopkirk's account should bo paid by the sub-contractors who' undertook to complete the work. The defendant was represented in both actions by Mr. A. W. Blair. Tho cases for the plaintiffs having been heard on Monday, and counsel for the, defendant having opened, the case fa the defence in both actions was continued yesterday morning. H. T. Johns, architect, and W. H. Brightwell were the only witnesses calleel for the defence.

After hearing counsel, His Honour reserved his decision.