A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1940, 23 November 1906, Page 3

A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM.

In the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr Barton, S.M., yesterday, the case of Skeet Bros, vorsus lane. Simson, claim for work and labor done and material supplied, oocupied over two hours, Mr Stock appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. D. Lysnar for defendant. The amount olaimed was jS 18 6j for making doors and building shed at defendant’s reeidence at Waikanae ; £ls lls 8d had been tendered in paymsnt oi aoeonnt, which amount was not aooepied. John William Maokrell, builder and oontraotor, deposed that he went to in Bpeot the work done by Messrs Bkeet Bros, at ihd defendant’s honse. He saw two wire gauze doors, which were worth JJL 5e eaoh, He thought that £2 5i was a very reasonable pries for the doors. The doors appeared to be well hang. Witreis also examined the four diagonal sliding doors, which appeared to be properly fixed. He estimated that these doors would oosb f 8 6j. ' He did not try the doors to see if th'oy moved freely. He also saw a shed which he valaed at £l l7s, If defendant said there was only £8 worth of material In tbe shed witness would like to Rive him five times that amount for it. Witney ’thought at £lB 6j the plaintiffs were not getting too maoh for the work done and material supplied ; in faot this would be under estimated,

By Mr Lysnar: Witness did not try the eliding doors, but examined the qaality of the work. Ia the gauze doors witness did not allow for the painting of them, He was not aware that tbe doors had beeD repaired since Skeet Bros.’ had done them. The gauze doors were at the baok pari of the bouse. Witnoss examined ail the gauze doors in the honse, and they were all the same. Mr 0. R. Skeet pointed tbe doors out to him. As there was some unooriaiaty about the doors, witness jsetiQ*

inod all tbo gaczt doors. Tho size of tho shod was 14 x 10, and consisted of a top, back, and part of side. v By Me S:ojk: Thoro must bo two runners on the sliding doors. Reginald Skoaf, olio of tho plaiotiffs stated that defendant engaged bis firm to do osrtain work, but no price was men-, lioned. Defendant said ho wanted a cheap job. They had to build tbo shod, tho sliding doors nud two gauze doors in tho back. Tho gauze doors svoro finished properly. There was no break or damage in tho doors iu anyway. Tho four dingonal sliding waro finished and tho pries charged was roasonahlo. Tho dofeudnut wanted the.-o doors to run oloseiy. They would not always run freely. The prico for tho shed was also very low. Thoru was only a profit of about £1 7s on tho shed, and not more than ill 15s on the whole lot. Tho plaint:!!, wore nover asked to put iu a pipe to carry water from tbo shod. They had loft tbo job in good order when fimshod Any damage to the doors must have boon done subsequently. By Mr Lyauar : A man was son! to ease thadoirs, alter a writiou complaint had boon made by tho dofoadaut, Plaintiff was not awt*ro of any further oomplaint, nor was ho awnro that defendant had had to repair tho doors. By Mr Stock: Plaintiff did not rccoivo any further oomplaini from tha defendant, Oooil RoborS Skoet, tho other plaintiff, gave oorroborativa evidence. Tbo defendant bad boon told by witnoss that tho deors should bo painted, otherwise they would warp. Tho defendant had orderod tho doors to be put too close, and in consequence a min was Bout up to ossa the doors. Leonard Martin, foreman for Messrs

Skefl! Brea., corroborated the evidoccs of previous witnesses. Mr Sirnson had asked for the doors to ba hung closer after they wore finished. The sliding doors wore properly fised and ran freely. For the dofonoo Mr Lysnar said it was praolioally a question of value, and defendant alleged that there was an over* charge. lan Simson, defendant, said he gave an

order to plaintiffs to do tho work. After it was finished ho made a complaint. The doors had never been satisfactory. A man was sent down by plaintiff to ease thorn. Defendant had complained about tho doors not being sized and painted. Dofondant found that tho sliding doors wto not acting satisfactorily. When the djors were together they dropped back as if

they were only on one roller. Defendant had the doors sized and painted within a week after they wore fixed. After tho second complaint defendant had to repair the doors himself. The wind blew the wire out of one door. The wire might have been knocked out, but witness did not think so. Defendant had tho door repaired, which cost him ss. Ho received a reply to a letter he had written to Skeet Bros, complaining about tho doors. The reply stated that plaintiffs believed children had knocked out the wire. By Mr Stock : An architect examined the work yesterday, and another a month ago. Over three months passed before I

got architects to examine the work, Mr Stock read a letter from Messrs Skeet Bros., which defendant had called impertinent. His Worship : I can see nothing impertinent in that letter. Mr Stock: But Mr Simson’s answer was impertinent. He had written on the back of this letter, and returned it, “ You’ll get a cheque when Mr Barton and the public know what sort of workmen you are.”

The defendant: I consider the plaintiff’s letter impertinent. Under cross-examination, defendant admitted that he had made no complaint about the sliding of the doors. Francis John Wilson, architect, gave evidence of inspecting the shed. He valued the shed at £1 6s 3d. Ho saw four sliding doors, which he valued at £6. The doors did not work very well, The doors did not close properly, as they wero badly fixed. He did not think the doors were fixed in a workmanlike manner. He valued the gauze doors at £‘Z ss. By Mr Stock : Witness knew Mr Mack--rell- He thought him a competent man. Mr Mackrell’s estimate was a fair one. The sliding doors were close to the sea. Charles A.. Natusch, architect, gave similar evidence. Ho had inspected the work on Wednesday. He valued the doors at £o 15s unpair.ted. The doors had not been properly fixed, as they did not close at the top when brought together. The defect in closing would only be through bad workmanship. In his opinion witness valued the shed at about £6 ss.

By Mr Stock : Witness thought that Mr Mackrell’s estimate was too high. If the doors were made of totara they would be more valuable. By Mr Barton: If it was only a matter of rollers the doors could be put right at a cost of 10s. Counsel addressed the Bench, After the luncheon adjournment His Worship said the evidence in the case was very conflicting. On the one hand Mr Mackrell had stated that the work was undercharged, while on the other the architects said the work was valued too high. His Worship thought the plaintiffs had charged too much; while defendant’s estimate was too low. He would give a verdict for plaintiffs for iQlfl 8s 3d, costs Jtl 7s,