THE ARCHITECT AND THE CONVENT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2191, 4 March 1881, Page 3

THE ARCHITECT AND THE CONVENT.

The following in a condensed report of a cage hoard at the Resident Magistrate’s Oourt yesterday, before J. Nugent Wood, B.M. The matter hod excited considerable interest: Jacobsen y M. Bt. Gabriel, claim £IOO, for work done in preparing plans and speeifltiona for the building of a convent. Mr Holmes for plaintiff; Mr Harper, with him Mr Loughnon, for defendant. Plaintiff is an orchitect practising at Christchurch. Defendant is prioress of tho convent of the Sacred Heart at Christchurch. Plaintiff’s case was that he had been instructed by defendant to prepare plans and specifications for a building in brick and stone, end ho received a ground plan,with verbal explanations from defendant, to give him n general idea of what was required. Tho plans, &3 , wore duly made, and tenders were called for the erection of the building. None was accepted, the cost being considered too great, the lowest tender being £6OOO. Plaintiff, after several applications, received payment for his plans and specificacations—viz., £149 12j 6d, or 2i per cent, on the estimated cost of the building. Plaintiff then gave a subscription of £3O towards the cost of tho proposed convent. Tho subscription was solicited by a canvasser, and the money was deducted from tho payment he hod received.

iNot hing further was done for some time, when in October, 1880, plaintiff having submitted estimates, was instructed to prepare fresh piur.s for a building to be in wood. He did prepare them, and after some negotiation ho wrote to defendant on November 25th, offeriag to give the plans for nothing, or, rather, to consider them as paid for by the sum he had already received, providing that if the building was erected his plans should bo accepted, and that ho should have the supervision of the work, and that he should be paid one per cent, on the cost of it. This letter, he alleges, was sent by hand to the prioress, and an agreement was afterwards signed by him somewhat varying its terms. It stipulatod that if a tender for £4OOO came in, the work was to bo done, and that ho was to bo the architect, &o. Tenders were ogain called for, and at least one of them was to do the work for less than £4OOO. Again, however, none was accepted ; and, in an interview with defendant and Father Ginaty, ho learned that the idea of building in wood was given up, and that hie plans were not to be made use of, it having been determined to erect the convent by day - work under the supervision of a clerk of the works. He was asked to furnish an elevation and a plan of a window to bo worked in with some other plan, and was offered £25 for the same which he refused. Subsequently he wrote, offering to give the required drawings, for £3O, but that offer was refused by defendant. Plaintiff then found that the building was being gone on with on another architect’s plans, and under the supervision of Mr Woyburn, as clerk of the works. Upon this plaintiff wrote, claiming 2i per cent, on the price of the building he designed, and that sum, £IOO, being refused, he brought the present action, Mr Whitelaw, an architect, deposed that the plans produced were carefully and well made, and that the price named for them was what was usually charged. O. J. Prank deposed that at an interview with the Rev. Mother and Mr Jacobson, the former acknowledged having said that if a tender could be got for £4OOO the building should be gone on with, and plaintiff appointed an lervisor at 1 per cent, on the cost, John Buxton proved that he tendered for the building, his price was £3973. For the defence the Rev. Mother St. Gabriel admitted most of the statement above detailed as being fact. But her history of the agreement with plaintiff was altogether different. She produced the document which had been described by plaintiff as a preliminary letter. She swore that it had been written in her parlor by plaintiff, and was the only agreement that ever existed between them as to the plans for the wooden building. [Mr Holmes hero objected to the admission of the document on account of its not being stamped. The fine leviable for such omissions was then guaranteed by Mr Harper, and the agreement was received as evidence.] Mr Jacobsen had brought an agreement to her which she would not take, because it was written in pencil. Ha then sat down and wrote the present one. Witness never admitted any obligation to plaintiff, but what ws> embodied in that agreement. Jacobsen hud been offered liberal terms if he would supply the plan of a window and an elevation that was required for their clerk of works to work by. [A long cross-examination elicited nothing more that was material to the issue.] Father Ginaty, parish priest, stated that he caused the plans for a wooden building to be rejected. Seeing the agreement that had been signed by Jacobsen he did not think there had been any injustice done by throwing over Jacobson, who had in point of fact thrown himself over. Had offered the latter to pay for certain plans required after the last set of plans were rejected. He actually offered, if furnished with them, to pay Jacobson 1 per cent, on the cost of the now building, and relieve him of all responsibility pertaining to its erection. Sister St. John detailed her recollection of what had taken place when Jacobsen brought Frank to the Prioress. She had not heard any reference to the rev. mother having previously promised to employ plaintiff if a tender at £4OOO wore sent in. The proceedings in this ease occupied the whole day, but consisted chiefly of recapitulations of evidence not strictly relevant to the matter. Some sparring took plane occasionally between counsel, and Father Ginaty made a speech at the close of his evidence, in which his remarks were not flattering to Mr Jacobson, The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said substantially that he believed the version given by the rev. mother about the agreement, that there had been no other, and that he could not go behind it. He thought very liberal terms had been offered to Mr Jacobsen, who was ill-advised not to accept them. Judgment for defendant, with ousts of Court and solicitor’s fee £3 3s