AN INTERESTING CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 827, 27 February 1903, Page 1

AN INTERESTING CASE

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Moses Haisman sought to claim from Charles James Dunlop, tho sum of £5 ss, on the ground that the plaintiff was the lowest tenderer for work for which tenders were invited by defendant. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for plaintiff, and Mr \V. L, Rees for defendant. Mr Jones stated tho claim had beon brought on account of tho Builders’ Association. He understood that tho defence was twofold, one allegation boing that there was collusion between the two contractors in tho matter. Tho second point of the defence was that the cheque sent in by Mr Haisman was undated, but ho would argue that a cheque given in that manner was valid. Moses Haisman, builder and contractor, stated that on August 2nd of last yeartenders were invited for the erection of a building for Mr Dunlop in Lowe street. Ho saw the conditions. One clause, the 18tb. had been erased, birf, when he 100 k thorn away there was a red ink mark “ reinstated ” against this clause. He tendered on tho understanding that the 18th clause had been reinstated, and this provided for the payment of the amount claimed in the event of no tender being accepted. His tender was .£2698. Mackrell and Colley also tendered, but in the aggregate witness was lower. Under the scale in clause 18 he was entitled to five guineas. 'With his tender he had deposited a cheque for £SO on tho Bank of Now' Zealand, whero he had funds’ to meet it. After the tenders had closed, witness met tho architect, Mr Finnerau, and asked him what was the result. Mr Finuorau replied that he thought witness and Mackrell and Colley had

“ cooked ” the tenders, which witness strongly denied. When witness received his cheque back from Mr Finucran, ho tore it up, and then put in a claim for five guineas under clause 18. Mr Finneran then told him that the cheque was informal, and witness offered to take the architect to the bank to prove that it was not. By Mr Rees : Witness did pat im.ow that the cheque was dishonored, and Mr Dunlop had hot tola him so. James H. Bain, ledger keeper, Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence that there were sufficient funds to meet the cheque, but it was undated and wanted initialling. J. Mackrell, builder, also gave evidence. Ml- Rees asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the cheque was not a deposit in the terms 0! clause 17. The cheque was valueless to Mr Dunlop when he could not cash it, and he was perfectly within his right in refusing the tender on the ground that the deposit had not been made. His Worship stated he was of opinion that the tender was informal on ibe ground that this cheque, was not a legal deposit in this case. Plaintiff must be nonsuited with solicitor’s fee £1 Is.