Untitled

Evening Post, Issue 106, 12 June 1865, Page 2

Beaumont v. Martin — Mr. Button ap- 1 peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brandon for defendant. This was an action to recover i .£9B 14s 6d, aMeged to be due by the defendant for work and labour done by plaintiff under two contracts, and for extras. It appeared the original contract had bee a made by Ihe defendant with Hie plaintiff and one Wilson, as joint contractors, but that Wilson had retired from the contract on Mr. Martin's suegestion at the commencement of the work Mr. Brandon contended that both contractors ought to have been plaintiffs. Mr. Button maintained that the action was properly brought, inasmuch as by a new agreement between the parties Mr. Wilson lost all in" terest in the contract. Mr. Brandon argued thai; a contract Jn writing could not be altered except by an instrument in writing. Mr Bu>tm stated that this contract was not reqtt'red by law to be in wriiing, and might be altered, varied, or discharged l>y a subsequent parol agreement. Mr. -Brandon intimated that this contract was requhed to be in writing by the Statjate of Frauds. Mr. Button asked by ypt&t section, and immediately proceeded to detail the various agree- 1 menta which that Act rendeiel necessary to be reduced to writing, and argued that tlite agreement did not come within the terms of any of them. After consulting the authorities, his Worship said that Mr. Button had stated the law correctly ; but suggested that this- was a csse which could be better dealt with by arbitrators. Both counsel concurring in this suggestion, the plaintiff waß nonsuited in order that the whole of the matters in dispute might be referred to arbitrators.