Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 129, 29 November 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS°DAY. (Before Mr E. L. Stanford, S.M.) William Darrah v. Hakaraia te Wheno ; claim £19 7s Id. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claituei with costs 255. and solicitor's fee 15s (id. Kirton and Curtis v. H. Stewart ; claim £5 19a. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff Judgment for amount claimed with costs lls and solicitor's fee 15s GiL Kirton and Curtis v. W. Lowe ; claim £2 lls 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 5s and solicitor's fee ss. Kirton and Curtis v. W. Kitchen ; claim LlO 19s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. James Norman v. Harry Honner ; claim L 2. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 5s solicitor's fee ss. Goodbehere and Richmond v. W. Lowe ; claim, £B lls 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss, and solicitor's fee os. W. Pearson v. Mrs A. Robertson ; claim, £1 7s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 7s. A. R. Allan v. W. Lowe ; claim, £1 9s sd. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss. Ratliff Bros. v. F. W. Beechey— a judgment summons ; claim, £6 6s for money lent. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Debtor offered to pay the whole amount before January lOtb next, and an order was made accordingly, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment. The A. E. Bull v. S. Knight, claim i'3B, was settled out of Court. Mr Richmond appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Haukins for defendant. T. H. James v the Colonists' Land and Loan Corporation ; claim .£22 10s, Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant company. This was a claim for the recovery of fees for preparing sketch plans of proposed new offices for the defendant company. T. H. James deposed : Was instructed by Mr E. Giesen, local, agent for the Colonists' Land and Loan Corporation, to prepare plans for proposed new brick offices, with facings of Oamaru stone ; the building was to cost i-1500 ; charged H per cent on the plans as prepared ; it was originally intended that the offices should be erected on the present site, but this was altered to a site in Manchester Square, opposite Mr Gosling'Sj and he prepared new plans accordingly ; in February rendered his first account to the Corporation, but nothing was said about it ; on Sept. 2 rendered the account in full again, nothing being said by Mr Giesen ; 1^ per cent was a reasonable charge. Cross-examined : The claim was for the plans for the proposed building to be erected on the present site ; ' it was shown with a front elevation ; a complete plan would be done for 5 per cent ; he did not provide side or back elevations on this plan as that was unnecessary in a sketch plan ; separate estimates were made for each plan ; no architect could charge unless employed ; an arrangement was made to charge lh per cent ; did not supply details, but merely a round sum for the work. Re-examined : Had a difference with Mr Giesen. The following ex2?ort witnesses were examined : T. S. Lambert, G. FitzGerald, W. Crichton (in Wellington), and Atkins Jin Wanganui), their evidence being as to usual charges. For the defence Mr Richmond submitted tbat the claim was out of all reason, being for only a preliminary sketch ; and that the charge should not have been more than one-half per cent. Also, that there had been money due by plaintiff to the Corporation which he could have claimed as a set off. Edward Giesen deposed : Was manager for defendant Company ; when the late General Feilding visited Feilding he instructed witness to have plans prepared for a building to cost £1000 ; Mr James prepared a sketch of a building with a front elevation, estimating the cost at £1000 for wood and £1500 if in brick; did not see plaintiff about a second plan ; the first account he received was on Sept. 2 ; offered plaintiff £5 5s in settlement of the claim. Mr Richmond addressed the court and Mr Sandilands replied. His Worship did not think a contract was proved between plaintiff and Mr Giesen. He thought one-half per cent as set down by the Wellington Institute of Architects was a fair charge, and he would give judgment for that amount on £1000. Judgment was given for £5, without costs, 21s solicitor's fee being allowed. Mr Sandilands gave notice of appeal. The Court then adjourned.