SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3407, 22 January 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL" SITTINGS. Wednesday, January 21. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) . Ross v. Keith and Others,—The jury in this case, after long deliberation, returned a verdict by five-sixths of their number, at 11 p.m. yesterday,,to the following effect with respeotio the various issues ; 1. Did the plaintiff and defendant on or about the 28th day of August, 1872, mutually agree with each other that the plaintiff should become the architect of defendants in the planning and building of a certain new church/called Knox Church, and . that the plaintiff should, as such architect, do and complete all the architect’s work requisite j-j iu j '^ n S of the same church ? And J™,,4 e: fondants, in consideration of plain- , . agreement, promise and agree with Pj a “ ltlff that the plaintiff should be paid at the rate of L 5 per cent, on the total cost or the sard church as in the declaration alleged ?—Yea.

2. Bid the plaintiff, in pursuance of the saul agreement, enter upon and in part pertohn liia said work, and superintend part ot the building, and expend certain moneys m and about tho said works ?—Yes. 3. Has the plaintiff always been able and willing to pertorm said works on the terms declaration mentioned, and to compuete the whole of tho said works, which by the said agreement ho agreed to do ? And have the .defendants , always had notice thereof ?—Yes.

4. Bid the defendants wrongfully discharge and prevent the plaintiff from doing k c ®“P letin g said work ’—No. 5. What would have been the total cost of the said work?—L6,92S. 6. Was there annexed to tho said agreement, in the declaration mentioned, by the general usage and custom in that behalf if and in- the business and occupation in which the plaintiff was so employed, a certain condition as in the second plea alleged ?—Yes. dditional issues proposed by plaintiff 1. Bid the plaintiff improperly and secretly be or become interested as owner of a certain

quarry from which stone was upon, the plaintiffs recommendation intended to be used in the erection of the church in the declaration mentioned ?—-Yes. Imprcmdrly, but not secretly. *• \ 2. If so, were tbe defendants justified in discharging the plaintiff from their service as architect in'the building of the church in the declaration mentioned?— No.

3. Did'the plaintiff wilfully disobey the reasonable orders of the defendants by them given to the plaintiff, in the sbrvioo in the declaration mentioned, by refusing to acknowledge an inspector or clerk of the works, whom tho defendants had lawfully appointed in and about and in connection with the erection of the said church in the declaration mentioned ?—No.

4 IE so, were the defendants justified in discharging the plaintiff from their said service on, account of such disturbance ?—No. 5. Did tho plaintiff insists upon the appointment as such inspector or clerk of tbe works of a certain business named John B. Uptson?—Yes.

6 Was the said John B, Hotspn, to the plaintiff’s knowledge, an unfit, improper, and incompetent person in that behalf ?—Yes. 7. If so, were the defendants justified in discharging the plaintiff from the said seri vice on account of his so insisting upditisucli appointment ?—Yes. i

8. Did the defendants discharge the plaintiff from their said service, on account of tho acts in the third plea alleged ?—Yes. j 9. Did the defondants, after they had become aware that the plaintiff was interested in the quarry, in the said third plea mentioned, waive any right of the defendants to discharge the plaintiff on account-' of his being so interested in tho said quarry, and did the defendants retain the plaintiff in their service, and continue to employ him as their architect in the building of tbe church in the declaration mentioned?-yes. 10. Was the plaintiff, as architect of the defendants, according to the general usage and custom of and in the business and occupation of an architect, entitled to appoint an inspector or clerk of works for 1 the said church, or- to be. relieved from the responsibility of superintending and supervising the erection of the said church, and did the defendants refuse to relieve the plaintiff from such responsibility ?—Yes. 11. Diff the defendants, after the plaintiff had refused to acknowledge the inspector or clerk of. works in the the third plea mentioned, Waive their right to discharge the plaintiff on account of his so refusing to acknowledge the said inspector or clerk of works, and retain the plaintiff l in their’ service, and continue to employ him as their architect in the building of the church in the declaration mentioned ?—No. 12. What damages (if ‘ any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants ? —4os. Mr Macassey submitted; that the verdict could not be received, as the answers to the issues were substantially for the defendants. ■ . ilk Honor: I do not think it can Ire received. It seems to me to be a verdict for the defendants; all the substantial issues being answered in their favor. Mr Stout contended that it was not a case in which the verdict should not be received. It might be a case for moving hereafter that the verdict be entered for tffie defendant. He thought the best course would bo to let the answers remain as they were, and for the defendants to move in the matter hereafter. Mr Macassey asked that a note of hia request should be taken. His Honor lam strongly of opinion that the verdict is in favor of the defendants, but .1' will'let it stand as it is. Leave to be given to Mr Macassey to move that the verdict be entered for the defendants, on the grounds that the findings were in their favor.