RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2755, 15 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases, J. W. Fish and Co. v. Matheson and Henderson.— L2O 3s, for work done and lab ir supplied. Judgment by default for tbe plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Lange and Thoneman v. Hong Mcng Shing.—L94 6s 7d. Mr Harris for the 1 laintilT. This was a claim for rice anl other good? supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, with costs France and another v. Reid.—Lßo 19s 6d. Mr Stout for the plaintiff-;; Mr Harris fer the defendant. This was a claim for L."O, the amount of two dishonored ch qius,and the remainder for a contract for re-erect-ing and a'tering a house at Corner Bush. The defence was that the cheques were given in consequence of misrepresentation of payments received, on the part pf the plaintiffs, to the architect, Mr D. Ross, who through it gave a certificate for work done to a larger amount than specified by tbe contract; that several items were charged as extras that should have been included in the work contracted for ; and that the work was not executed to the satisfaction of the architect The plaintiffs xvere examined at great length to prove the necessity for the extras charged for, and that they were done by the orders of the defendant. The defendant said Mr D. Ross was appointed architect for tire work ; that he had made progress payments without requiring the certificate of the architect, when he was satisfied there was suffiejept woj,Tc done to cover the amount advanced. In opder to induce defendant to give the cheques which we*e refuped payment, an account with extras was givenj amounting to L 74 odd, which he believ d to be correct on their representation, but which on examination he found incorrect, as he had a claim against them for L4O. Ho therefore told them they mu-t hand back the cheques or he would order payment to be stopped. -As they were not given up he directed his bankers not to pay them, and the plaintiffs loft the work unfinished on the following Monday. It was an arrangement that an account should be kept for material and provisions supplied and settled for at the close of the contract. D. Ross, architect, stated that every time he visited the y/prk he had to find fault with the workmanship, and directed alterations to be made When the work Avas represented tp be finished, he examined it, and refused to give a final certificate until certain alterations were made. On the faith of the statement that they had only received the amount stated by the contractors, who left out of their statement goods and provisions supplied to M r Reid to the amount of L4O, he gave tfje certificate, on which the cheques were given. Mr Rqss was cross-examined at great length by M. Stout as to the defects of the work. The sum of the examination was that until certain items, which he specified, were finished, he would not grant a final certificate. William T. "Winchester, contractor, had examined tbe work which was not finished in accordance with specification. He named the items lie considered defective. His Worship said t hat although the cheques might have been given under certain impression under Mr Ross’s certificate, both the defendant and Mr Ross might have construed the plaintiff’s words in a different sense from what was intended. He could not think there was any wilful misrepresentation on their part, for strictly they lad only received the ameunt of money acknowledged, and the goods were evidently intended to be accounted for in a final settlement. The chequestherefore must be paid. With regardjto payment without final certificate, it was decided on Milner and Meld and Maryan and Bond, it was a condition precedent to a right to receive payment, therefore the balance due on the contract could not be yet decided on, but it was different with the claims for extras which formed no part of the contract. For extras ho should allow LlO 8s Gd. which, added to the value of the cheques (L3O) would make up L4O Ss fid. Judgment for the plaintiff for that amount with costs.