RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3471, 8 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, April 8. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —John George Jennings, for this offence, was fined 6s, with the optftm of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; Anne Manning and Christop Hewsen, each 40s or fourteen days’. tone Throwing, John M'Lennan, charged with throwing stones from a Bhanghai on the Town Belt,, near Duke street, to the danger of passers-by, was severely admonished, after which he was discharged.. CIVIL OASES Judgment by default-was given in the following cases, together with costs Blakely V. Sinnamon: L 9 12s 6d; N. Z, Distillery Company v. Knox, Ll6 8s 4d; M'Geghan v, Dougherty, LI7 15s fid; Kebio v. .Newton, L 9 ,ls 9d ; Baxter v. Moonev, L 5 17s 4d. Roasv. Pyke.-Claim L 27 ss, for profesatonal services rendered iu. preparing plans and specifications, and advertising for Renders for erecting a villa residence for defendant at Lawrence. MrE Cook for, plaintiff; Mr Macassey for defendant, who paid into Court LI4 ss, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder.—David Ross, architect, said he was employed by defendant by letter, in March, 1872, to design a house for him. In the letter was a sketch by which to prepare a plan. He sent up plans, and submitted them to defendant for approval, Ttase were drawn up in accordance with the sketch. Witness detailed particulars of the plans, and said that he wrote telling defendant that the cost of erecting same would be LBSO. Received a reply from the defendant, who stated that the plana were all that could be desired, but the amount was beyond his means. The plana were accordingly modified, and-defendant approved of them. He reduced the plana after they were modified by LIOO. Tenders were called for, the lowest being L7BO. The plaps were not returned. The rate for preparing plans and superintending, was 6 per cent, for new buildings. If only plans were wanted, and taken away, and tae architect not required to superintend, 2$ per cent, was the charge. Claimed 3£ per cent, on the estimated coat of the building; the additiouM 1 per cent, being for extra charges. He should say his services were but poorly paid at that sum. The amount was payable as soon as the plans were submitted.—-By Mr Macassey : If a bona fide tender for L 530 had been sent in, he would have claimed 34 per cent, on that amount, iastead of on the amount claimed, la a conversation with one Alex. Humphrey, he said that on a sketch made by himsMf he recollected tendering for erecting a house for L 530, which did not include painting, paperhanging, and glazing. Had he been employed to superintend the work, he would have charged 5 per cent, bn the work, besides travelling expenses, hotel expenses, and his labor. - Mr Macassey r Which would bring up the bill to three times the contract price; —These, charges , were in accordance, with their rules. He was not bound by the .Dunedin rules. He had sha Victorian’ rules m his office, slightly altered to ‘suit his special convenience. If all the architects in town were to say they should duly charge 24 per cent down to the acceptance of the tenders, he should differ from them.-James A. Wales stated that, looking at the plans pro. duced. he should say that LBOO would be about the cost for erecting the building This was a rough estimate. The usual charge for preparing plana and specifications, was 24 per cent, and 2 for getting the tenders in. He estimated his qomuus=ion on the probable cost of the work. By Mr Macassey : If there were no accepted tenders he should charge 21 per cent on tne lowest tender seat in, and 4 per centou the trouble of procuring the tenders.— E. J. Sanders, architect of 25 year* standing,'gave a rough guess at L7OO to LBOQ as the amount which it would cost to erect tlse building as per sketch. His general rule was to charge only 2£ per cent. ‘ He ouly charged the extra 4 per’ cent in

special cases.-For the defence, William Mason architect, who was called, stated that the charge he made on the lowest tender was 2* per cent, besides the Usual advertising charges.— Mr Macassey: Them like husband and wife sometimes, vou and your partner disagree ?-( Laughter )-Wit. ness: I never charge more than 24 per cent 1 was Court when Mr Walei said L chSd th FL°SS r at . J time8 ' anduot knowing c dld 60 i I said to him as he canie out of Court, “ Do you charge a commission of 3 per cent ? He replied that he had bat never received it .’’-(Renewed laughter 1Koht. Lawson, architect,' said h/charied 2 per ceut on the lowest tender as cotomiaevuntteS did so.—Vincent Pyke received from dufoj

■ v 1,111 dant some plans and specifications for .'the erection of a house. Tenders .were being called for at Lawrence and Dunedin at the same time. . Witness received four tenders—one, either L 530 or L 531 (Humphrey’s), the second L 540 (Mearea’a), the third L 575 or thereabouts, and the highest a few pounds oyer L6OO. He received only one - tender from Mr Ross, for over L7OO. JHe wrapped up the tenders a .pi®®® of brown paper and sent them away addressed to “David Ross, Esq.,.architect, Dunedin.” He afterwards called on defendant and asked to be allowed to see the tenders. Ross denied having the tenders, whereupon witness expressed- astonishment at the reply and asked Ross to look for them. •He refused; saying that all his business matters were s« well arranged that he could not make a mistake. He had paid Ll4 10a—--24 per cent, on the lowest tender, and LI foradvertising.—By Mr Cook : With plaintiff he had the original plan altered. • Plaintiff suggested some of the alterations; finding he had made too pretty a cage altogether. He had made a fruitless search from one end-of j the house to the other; in every corner of his boxes and in every thimble-hole for the P la “ 8, tv more comparison could: be made with Dunedin and the; Tower of London * , -^ een the - house that was built for him by Meares and that for which plans_were drawn by Ross.—(Laughter) , 8 y^°™“ l P» a^e . r reviewing the evidence, , said that he considered the preponderating ; evidence wasin favor of 24 ■ peri ■cent. - being a fair and reasonable < charge. > There was evidence .that-the lowest.tender was 24 per cent on that amount would pe Ll3 ss, and LI for advertising would bring it |o , LI4 sa,,the amount paid into Court. Judgment would therefore bo for that amount, and he.was of opiuion that defendant a costs should be paid. '•:> ; , [Left sitting..]- ,