ALLEGED LIBERALITY.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 16 December 1901, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBERALITY.

{To the Edi'or.)

r s—ln your issue of Friday a paragraph appears with reference to the case Arnett and Seabrook v. Smith which would lead the public to believe that my contract took 12 weeks over time to complete, without reason. As a fact the work was considerably delayed through alterations made by the architect who substituted shop fronts for the o dinary ones, after the greater part of the work was done, and for this and bad weather be allowed six weeks’ extra time. With reference to the claim for £4 extra work the Magistrate did not bold it was part of the original contract, but struck it out because no written order was given by the architect. As to Mr Smith proffering £22 which you say I refused, your statement is hardly correct. Mr Smith did offer that amount provided I signed a receipt in full for all demands, but this I refused to do as I considered and still consider, I had a claim against him for the penalties deducted and the extra work. The Magistrate of course thought otherwise. I have been contracting on the West Coast for over thirty-five years and have never known a case in which penalties were deducted as they have been in the present instance, nor where extra work by the architect verbably been paid for.

I held the architect’s certificate for £22 13s maintainance money, and was entitled to judgment for it, as a matter of course.—l am etc, Arnett and Sbabhook.