RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3234, 2 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, July 2 (Before I. N. Watt, Esq,, R.M.)

Sanders v. the Friendly Societies’ Hall Company.-—ln this case, which was heard last week, judgment was given as follows If the plaintiff’s contention, that the terras he offered to the defendants, in his letter of 24th May, 1872, applied only to works to be carried out under the second -set of plans, and not to those actually carried out under the third set, be correct, he has, upon his o\vn evidence of the custom of architects, charged LGI 5s too little commission; but if the terms offered applied to the third set, as I think there is abundant evidence in the plaintiff’s letter of 11th July, 1873 to show they did, then he has charged L 43 4s 6d too much commission; this amount being the difference between 5 per cent, and per cent on the cost of Hanigan’s building and the extras, I have no evidence before me as to the custom of architects respecting their commission on extras, but I think if they were in all cases to be allowed to charge full commission, an inducement would be held out to them to omit from their plans and specif! ■ tions necessary works, in order to reduce the estiiqates and the amounts of the tenders

lower, to the manifest injury of their employers. In the last-mentioned letter, the plaintiff also abandons all claim to the LI 7 6s 8d for readvertising. With respect to the other items : For the defendants it is positively denied that the plaintiff ever supplied any design for gaslights, and I note that this charge and those for the prospective view and tracings do not appear in either of the accounts rendered on the 17th September, 1872, and 9th January, 1873, respectively. I am, therefore, led to conclude that the evidence for the defence that these last two items were furnished gratuitously, is correct. The total of these several deductions from the plaintiff’s account is L7B 8s 2d, the balance now claimed. In other words, I Hnd the plaintiff to have been entitled to L 75 for the first set of plans, and to 2$ per cent, upon the cost of the work supervised dv him, making in all L 179 10s, the amount already paid to him by the defendants. Judgments for the defendants, with costs. CIVIL CASES. M‘Gregor and Easton v. Moss and C iuzens.—This was a claim for LlO *, damages sustained by an alleged breach of contract. Mr Harris for plaintiffs, and Mr Stewart for defendants. An agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of a quantity of machinery and mechanical engineering implements, which the defendants failed to implement. The defence was that payment was to be made one-third cash and the balance by bills. When the settlement was about to take place plaintiffs insisted upon having the bills endorsed. This th© defendants maintained was an addition to the original agreement, which entitled them to refuse to complete the arrangement. Judgment was reserved till Friday.