RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3064, 13 December 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Cjtvjp EXTIiN OED J UHI.SDWTJON, Sparrow v. Warnes.— For the taking of evidence, adjourned to Friday next. Neill and others v. Boyle.—Lß4 3s 7d, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Hagg.tt for plaintiffs. Adjourned to Friday next Saunders v. Gillies and others. --L75, for work and labor done in preparing plans and Sp'eciljcatiim for Knox Church, being If per cent, on XfOOOjQ. -Mr Stoat for plaintiff, and hlr Stewart fo» defendants' ’ Tbs defendants form the building committee for Knox Church. The grounds of the claim, as detailed in the evidence of E. J. Saunders, the plaintiff’, were;—' ntheßth and 12th March last, he received letters from Mr Robert Gillies, in cons quence of which he prepared and delivered, on the 25th March, designs for a lidw Kn.ox Chnrrfi with an accompanying letter and incomplete gpedn cation. Mr Oil ies was told it w’as not compile, bijLho wished to Lave it. The value of the work for which specifications were not completed (the spire and tower) would be LSOO or LGOO. He received no intimation as to the acceptance or non-accept-ance of the design. The drawings were sent Back to hi 3 °s ce ; 011 th° 30th August, without the speculations- f J !>e Utter were returned on the J9f-h November, haying j>ecu dropped into his letter-box. He charg. J. per cent on LOOOO, the limited post of th,e building. He received no communication from the Building Committee. In reply to Mr .Stewart: The design was one of several competitive plans the specifications had been delivered to a former Committee, by whom they were ordered, Ife had not received the cost of them previously. He had claimed the amount of them, but abandoned his claim. Mr Stewart read a portion of a letter, stating the conditions on which com petitive designs were invited, one of which was that, the Committee should incur no liability unless the plans w- re adopted. A letter from tlw plaintiff was read in which be had alluded to the p!r a spe uficaiiuna being submitted gratis, the worn underfilled. At an interview with the Committee, he declined to give fjail information ap to the ye ll tilation iif"the ; churcji, until it was decided that be was the successful'competitor. The drawings and specifications were handed in separately. Hia last conversation with Mr i'ieith was on October 19, when he (Mr Keith) offered him a document, which he did receive. D. Ross, architect, was appointed architect for the new Knox Chnvph two or three months ago. He was elected architect by the Deacons’ Court, and prepared a new design. It was not in competition for a design that he was elected. The usual charge f -r preparing plans and specifications was 2J. per cent, on the estimated cost; plans without specifications (sketch p'ans drawn to scale) were 1} per cent. He was not aware that there was a scale for specifications without plans. If sent afterwards, it would of course be 1] per cent. The practice in competition was to re turn all documents to unsuccessful competitors, If documents were detained he should expect to be paid. It was a custom with architects, even if the plans were originally prepared for another building, he shogld be entitled to be paid for them. In reply to Mr Stewartlf designs were not adopted he should expect them to be returned. Unless by express conditions, in competitive designs, the unsuccessful competitors were not paid. In terras of the letter, Bth March, inviting fresh com petitions, ho did not expect to be paid if his plans were not adopted, unless they were detained after being demanded. In reply to Mr StoutHe had heard of Committees detaining second and third place designs, and arranging for payment for them. He did not agree with the terms of the letter, as it invited new designs, while the resolution appointing the Committee only empowered them to reexamine designs already submitted. It was not usual to a-<k fur return of designs until informed who was the successful competitor. Unless it was a c -ndition of the competition, it w r as not usual to send in specifications—merely a detailed estimate. He did not consider it necessary, in terms of the letter, to send in a specification. None of his designs weie kept. Had th !i y been, he should have charged for them if they had been withheld after asking for them. R. A, Lawson said the usual charge for plans was 2i per cent, on the estimated cost, if nob adopted, and 5 per cent, if accepted. The division was per cent, for plans; 1\ for specifications ; 1* for details ; and 1| for supervision. If specifications were not returned after being demanded, he should charge for them. It was usual to tell architects the result of a competition. As the invitation was expressed, he should expect

one of the designs would be selected, not an architect elected. , For the defence, Mr Stewart contended that a special agreement was entered into between the Committee and the plaintiff by his complying with the conditions expressed, and therefore he had no claim. He sued for work and labor done in preparing specifications. Unit rvas net what was asked, and the remedy he should have adopted, bad hia documents been withheld after being asked for, was to sue for wrongful detention when he might, have recovered. But in this case there was no detention. There was evidence to show that the plaintiff neve r expected to bo paid when he scut in his plans, and the documents had been returned Avhen asked for. Mis ors'up was clearly of opinion that the letter of Bth March and that of 27th April rendered the o'aim untenable. At the same time, he considers the documents should have been returned. Judgment for def» ndauts. Mr SteAvart, on behalf of the Church declined to ask for costs.

O’Brien v. Millar.—Claim, L3O 12s; Mr Stout for the plaintiff. Mr Harris for the defendant. L2 2s had been paid into Court. Th ■ claim was for alleged balance of salary at the rate of L 4 a week, and hotel expenses while in the country, and L 5 a week Avhile in toAvn.—George O’Brien, in his evidence, sa : d he was employed by defendant to assist him as Civil Engineer for three weeks previous to February 6th, 1871. He received five pounds on account, and on that day he entered into an agreement to go up the country, Avhwc ho continued until June 19th, 1871 He was surveying, and Avhen not in the field, draAving. On returning to town, ho worked in Mr Millar’s office to 23rd December, and after that, to Jan nary 20th, 1872. In reply to Mr Harris, he was in Millar’s service at the times stated, except when he was nmvell. The telegram produced was sent by him Ho had rather not explain, for he had reformed. The truth was, he got drunk, and was very ill after it, but alloAved LI I for the time lost. A letter was produced, signed by the plaintiff, authorising the deduction of hotel expenses for a cortaiji period, and pledging himself to abstain from spirituous drink:* for twelvemonths. A receipt was read for L 195, attached to Avhich was a promise to pay L 25 on the defendant receiving the balance of L 3-50, due for survey of the Moeraki railway Another receipt was put in for balance of w-gos to 27th January, Judgment was gi\ r en for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court.