SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3405, 20 January 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. , Tuesday, January 20. ; , (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Boss VI Rbith; -and j Oth¥rs’. ie-This ivvos ran action brought by David Ross, architect, to recover the sum of L 202 I3s 6d, balance of commission said to be due on the total cost (L 7,345) of the new Knox Ghuroh budding, from the defendants, who are metilbers of ‘the building committee of that .church. Mr .Stout and Mr Johnston appeared'for plaintiff;; Mr Macassey and Mr Stewart for defendants. Plaintiff's case was contained in a number of issues which set forth the particulars' of his' claim: and bV which it appeared that on August 28,1872, an agreement w ( as, .entered jnto between plaintiff and defendants, to the effect that the former should the ,new building and do aU the necessary work in connection with that (unco, the remuneration, to-be a commission of 5 per cent. 1 * oh the to&tTof the chiitch. Of this amount plaintiff had received onlyLl7s, the amount UpW Claimed ffieing the bil&hcO r dW’ find a few smaU->items v ;in addition./ iDefendante pleaded firstly that they deniid all tho-ihatet'ial allegations of plaintiff, apd ; secqndly.,that, /according to the usual custom in such matters,’ the committee might at any time determine the service of the architect on giving notice of such indention—in.which latter case, a proportionate a, »o«ht bf commission .up to" thb date of disr mißsail.only would be given- 1 -arid that in acCord u that custbm : defendants had givbh required’notice, and lawfully dis: missed him from their services. -Defendants therefore pleaded non-liability fdrthe balance of c.pmmission.sucd ■ for. Stout stated plaint tiff a case, saying that defendants .gave as rea sons for discharging plaintiff three instances of alleged misconduct, which were that he became interested in a quarry from which stone for the building waa-to’ be obtained; that he refused to acknowledge defendants’ clerk of works ; and that ho insisted op i,the; appointment:, of .Jjfcfl; B. Hotsonto that office. AU of these statements the evidence, would show to be,without foundation, and with respect to the cabins obtaining amongst architects he ‘ (Mr’Stout) wouM place several gentlemenof that profession m the witness-box to r stato- fheiF 1 Experienced Daym Ross, plaintiff: I have been an'Rrchitect for twenty-nine years. My plans for the new Knox Church were approved ,of by th'e defendants (the building .committee), and I was appointed architect. The committee consisted of Messrs Rqith . (convener),,,, John Grant, Thomas Moody, Andrew Hyslop, Secular, ; and rl.tmbmittea .a sample of ‘stone for their inspection, f ellingtheln that I was glad so good a stone could be got'ih the ncighborhood a eheaprate. .The stone was approved wid a-'daftke was put in tHb specifications that certmn portions of-the building were to be faced with-it. -The proprietor; of. that quarry became insolvent in the meantime, and on October 7 I bought .the _ land (nine acres) on which the quarry was situated. The committee ultimately discovered that I; was, interested X e e (I hot making any secret of it), and decided not to iisfi ;the stone. I afterwards prepared andther-complete set of plans fbr the : use of the builders, got a plan of S^e > did other small'jobs which bring the amount due to me up to what I now claim. The ground was found to vary imits level and it was! fopnd ; necessary • to; provide extra masoruy, in support the building. Hus added LllO to the contract price. In December correspondence passed as to the appointment of a clerk of works, the defen. dants stating that if I mentioned a suitable man and they approved of Him; he should be ap’pomted, I recommended Mr Hobson, an assistant pf mine; defendants wrote b.ickjasking me to name some others, but not stating qfay objections to that gentleme-U- or even m en soh* ing ms name. I then wrote advising defendants to appoint some other, architect to super- ■ intend if they had "hot confidence in ; me.- Mr David Henderson was ultimately appointed as clerk 'of workl; ' Audil wrote protest- ■ JIJS against it and refusing to recognize him. i JLne question,waS/Mn Jefe&ed )$o ;tlie Deacons’ ' L oUr i j of the Church > w Ho intimated that I should act as inspector pf works myself if I objected to the appointment made by the defendap|?* . Om January 16, defendants wrote to me to the effect’that I was v discharged mom as, Architect,.and requesting 'I? W 'W PM*-: . J‘' Have never heard of suon. a - thing l : as ah 1; architect being ■ dismissed by his employ ers whenever they liked to. give him notice. .The architectbas the right to ■appoint theclerkof worksthat is the rule evory- ■ where,* Crps3-cxamined,: lam amem^er ; of the : :congregation^of.Knox Church, :and i was at' the | .®f *“®.; oisous^n:as,.to building /the hew ; '.Prlß7l, competitive designs i were myitedbjT the Deacon/ Com; aiidil sent in a plan." The letter produced, in'which T i .^Pwsspleasure’at “so mdHy members of the ■Deacons Court being, in of toy plans,” was written by me; -blit I did not refer to the. Court as bemg. appointed -to carry rout the work.; /Durmg.the rivhole: of the -tfaiisactioh I jue'ver .Objected, tp the Deacons! Court beingcontinually mentioned;,,-h.ut was -always, dealing, with'.Mr Heithj as convener of, the building It was. m September, 1872,..that' I/took tlie cample,of.stone to t|ie committee. Bacon, the! then owner'of the Havehy that time mentioned; to 1 me that > He’ would sell' ; the quany- It'was after the committee had deoided to use the stone that I bought the quarry, - 'I do • not remember Mr Reith- accusing me of ' buying the quarry, or his saying that theie 1 would be a disturbance about.it; and if Mr! Reith swears he did, it will not be true. I .never .particularly ; mentioned to .any of the i committee,; before they rejected the stone,. that f I had acquired the quarry. ’ , | [Left sitting.] ■ "v • i