SUPREME COURT.
CIVIL SITTINGS.
Wednesday, Januaby-21. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman . and a Special Jury.)
. Ross v. Reith an© Ot#es,s. —The following additional evidence in this'cage was given during yesterday afternoon and to-day :~ David Boss (cross-examination continued): Mr Hotson has worked for me. but was not at that time, although he made my office his headquarters. He sometimes worked for me, at a salary of L2 10s a week, hut I don’t chink that arrangement existed between us when 1 recommended him to the committee at a salary of L 5 a-week.. I can’t say if l Said him specially for the plans tor which I ave charged JUS ss, or if the contractors paid for them. He was a fit man to be clerk of works. He Used to 4o work for other people, and was to receive the whole of the L 5 a-week for himself. I remember meeting the building committee, but did not then insist on appointing Mr Hotson, though I always claimed , the right, to appoint the clerk of. works myself. If hll the defendants swear I did insist, I still swear I did not. They accused Hotson of being a drunkard, and I said he was a very good man when sober. I believe he has often been “'on the spree,” and locked up for drunkenness. 1 had no personal objection to Mr Henderson. If Mr Oliver says the levels taken by me' are ail wrong I shall be much surprised, but am not able to contradict Mm. I understood that the plans were to remain with me, and when I heard the committee wale going to retain them; and erect the church from them, I sent in the claim for the additional sum of LlB3.—W. A. Steinhoff, railway engineer and architect: 1 have been connected with the profession for twenty-four years, both in the Colonies and in Germany,.and I never heard of an employer dismissing an architect when he pleased. If. a disagreement arose, the architect would expect kis full, commission. The architect generally appoints the derk of works.—rMessrs C. D. Irvfoe,, JV. Y, A. Wales, S. H. Mirams, and E. J. Sanders also gave evidence.as to the usual customs in the profession, tkte general purport being that an architect was entitled to full commission if .dismissed before a building was completed, and that the appointment of a clerk of works was Hsuady a joint affair between architect and employer.—Mr Macaeaey submitted there was no case jfco go to a jury, that the defendants were acting for the Deacon*’ Court, and that therefore plaintiff should be nonsuited A aether point was that plaintiff had failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to carry out the contract.— John Reith : I am convener of the Knox Church Building Committee and on# of the defendants. It was on plaintiff's recommendation that the committee decided on Using the stone from Bacon’s quarry, they not knowing he had any interest in the quarry. At a meeting of the Deacons’ Court, on October 17, I first learned that fact, and spoke to plaintiff about it, saying that it was very foolish conduct on his part and had cheated a prejudice against him in the Cour-. Itwasdecided to use other stone, principally because plaintiff had purchased that quarry. The tender of Messir JRoach and Jdartjq
was the lowest, and was accepted, those of Mr ■ Gore and Mr Howlison being next. Plaintiff did not follow our instructions with-regard to these tenders, but in consequence of the way in which he intimated the change of stone to the tenderers Roach and Martin made an addition of LilO to their price, which the committee were compelled, to agree to. . Plaintiff received no instructions as to seating and lighting the building, but he took levels. I We afterwards instructed Messrs Barr and Oliver to take these 'leyels also, anid they were found to d.ffer from plaintiff’s in every particular. I compared the two myself Mr Hotson was the only person recommended by plaintiff as clerk of works, and a full meeting of the committee was held to consider it when they decided to appoint Mr D. Henderson. Plaintiff said he would, have no one except the min hb wanted himself, as he wad thoroughly competent. I replied that I could not see how that could be, as he (Hotson) was to be bought at any time for a pot of beer,; and when wanted might be drunk. Plaintiff replied that Hotson was only drunk for three months out of a year, and insisted on his right to appoint an inspector. We dispensed with plaintiff’s services on January v 17, the works at the church being stopped through his conduct, the climax of which was reached in the'question of a-clerkiof works.' Cross-examined; We have commenced another church on the same site, of twhich Mr Lawson .is architect. Ido not know that Mr Hyslop is to be inspector: of works on it. Mr Hyslop recommended the stone from Mr Proudfoot’a quarry instead, of that from Mr Bacon’s. I beiieve he then was in Mi* Proudfoot’e employment. I remember the plaintiff saying once or twice .that he-would have nothing to d > with,the Deacons’ Court. Re-examined : The cotnmiitee.fbr- the erViction of the new church are Messrs Blair (con? vener), Turnbull, Matlieson, Cargill, and Mackerras, r These are appointed by the Deacons’ Court, add appointed. Mr Lawson architect.—-Charles M'Queen : IWas one of the building committee, and remember plaint tiff .saying - that, Hobson was “ right” foil about nine months in a year. —John B. Hob; . son ; I remember taking some levels bn the site for thp new Knox Church. The plan produced is the one I prepared, and plain* tiff verified it before signing it, I was then receiving a salary of L2 10s a week 'from plaintiff, but he did hot give me anything extra for the plan. ’ The contractors. Roach and Martin, paid me L 4 or LSforit. They did pay it me ‘* in a sort of a way.” There was no understanding, that I had a six months agreement to work for plaintiff at L2 Ids a week. Cross-examined : I whs at liberty to 4° work for other people while with plaintiff. 1 have been an engineer for twentyfour years, and am now in the employment of the L overnment at ; a* salary of L3OO a yCar and expenses paid.—R. A. Lawson, architect : I have been in the profession oyer twenty years. The proprietor of a building and the architect usually consult as to a clerk of works, and then -the architect formally appoints one—for tht proprietor of course. I know Mr Hotson, and do not consider him competent to act as clerk of works. I would not trust him out o’ my sight, and would think myself disgraced in employing him , If dismissed from a contract before it was completed, I should claim 5 per cent, on what work was done, and 24 per c nt. on the remainder.; Crossexamined : I have an assistant who has on oceasions “gone on the spree;” but he is a thoroughly capable man.—William Mason : L have practised as; an architect for forty years. The usual custom as to a clerk of works is that he is appointed by both parties —Robert Gillies and John M ‘UregorC.E. gavt similar evidence, bijit there seemed no general rule as to the commission chargeable under such circumstances as surrou ided this case. The jury retired at 4.30 p.m.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740121.2.8
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3406, 21 January 1874, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,248SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3406, 21 January 1874, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.