RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2484, 1 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before"A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. A. R. Hay v. Ward -LG 3s 4d, for goods sold and delivered by the late firm of Hay Brothers and Wright. Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Condon v. Gore —L9P IBs lid, less LG I 4s received, L3B 14s I Id—for work and labor done at the High School, Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Stewart for the defence From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that ho undertook to do the brick work, lath work, and cementing, on the top floor for L7O. Afterwards other work was ordered. The arrangeme ts were altogether verbal; some of which were agreed to he paid for, and some the defendant objected to, but were claimed as extras. Tbs material used in the work co t the sub contractor (the plaintiff) L 53. Iu reply to Mr Stewart, the plaintiff said he made his estimate from actua 1 measurement of the building, and bad not access to the plans and specifications prior to making the offer to do the work. The plaintiff denied any knowledge of MiBoss’s certificate that there were no extras except to the amount of L 4, a d Mr Gore’s time hook. Mr M'Farlaiie, pa tnerwith the plaintiff, was examined as to whether he did not recollect a memorandum hein" made by the defendant, to the effect thatthe Work was to he done for LG4. This he denied. On more than one occasion the defendant said he had no objection to allow the extras claimed if the architect allowed them. J. T. Knight had examined the work done by the plaintiffs. It was well done. The current prices for work could hardly he stated, as trade is so depressed that jobs are taken at a loss. 2s 3d a yard for lath work, and Is 3d to Is 6d for plastering on brick, were fair prices. Other witnesses were examined to prove that the prices charged were fair. For the defense it was contended that a contract was nude for LG4., and not L7O, as stated; that Condon had access to plans and pecifications, and that no extras were to be paid for unless allowed by the architect. The agreement was that Condon should do all that Gore was bound to do by bis contract. Ihe defendant said he made a memorandum of the price in Macfarlane’s presence. The plaintiffs did not complete the work, and it cost L33s3d to finish it. The total amout of his tender was L 74, being at tl;e rate of Is lOd a yard. In the execution of the work there had been no deviation from the p’an, the only extra being 1,4 odd for plumbers work. He (defendant) only received the amount of the contract, L 799, with that addition. He had received no acciunt until he received the summons ; but on being questioned by Mr Harris, he said an account was tendered him, bu ; he refused to take it nnti the work was completed. A witness named Wick gave evidence as to a conversation, in which Condon remonstrated with him for breaking a ceiling, saying “He had plenty to do for the moipy he would get.” Mr Howlison stated he tendered for the, work for L7G, The work was worth 2s a yard. If it were broken work, it was worth mo> e. He did not know the work at the High School. Several witnesses# were examined to prove conversations in which the existence of a contract was said to have been ad - mitted. Mr Stratton, architect, hid measured the work, and considered it worth 30per cent, less to a sub-contractor than to a contractor. He estimated the work to the latter at T.GS. His Worship was of opinion the contract was LG4. Ho should disallow two extras disputed, as Condon was told at the time they would not be allowed unless the architect gave them. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 22 10s lid, with costs.