RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume III, Issue 836, 10 January 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 8.M.) EXTENDED JURISDICTION. John M‘Gregor v. E. T. Gillon and. others (as members of the Episcopalian Church Building Committee at Tokomairiro), a claim of £25 for amount of a premium adjudged to the plaintiff for a competitive design. Mr Ward appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Dempsey for the defendants. The plaintiff’s case was that the Building Committee of the Episcopalian Church at Tokomairiro invited designs for a church to be built there, for which the one approved of was to receive £25 premium. *Acugly he forwarded a design to Mr Gillon, the Secretary of the Committee. A few days afterwards the plaintiff was informed that his design, subject to some slight modification, had been accepted, conditionally that the main building could be erected for a sum not exceeding £IOOO. The plaintiff in reply to various letters written, received certain instructions, in accordance with which he furnished specifications and drawings. Tenders were then called for the necessary work, and several sent in, but as they all exceeded the sum named by the Committee, were rejected. The Committee having decided to reject the plaintiff’s plans, as the work could not by them be executed within the sum named, he sent in a claim for L 25, the premium awarded. Plaintiff accounted for the excess by the freestone, &c., used in building,

which had to be brought from. Oamaru, instead of from nine miles from Tokomairiro, as he was informed it would be when he sent in the competitive drawing, and by which he estimated the cost of erection would not exceed the sum named. The defence set up was that as the work could not be executed according to the plans forwarded by the plaintiff within the sum named, he was not entitled to the premium offered. The Magistrate said that no evidence had been offered by the defendants to show that the work could not be carried out, according to the competitive design, for Ldooo ; they had shown that something else could not be done for that sum. The question before the Court was whether the work could have been done for that sum according to the competitive design. Through varying the contract the defendants had made it a different thing entirely. He must hold, upon the evidence given, that the plaintiff was entitled to the £25. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs.