MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2242, 5 May 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH Wednesday, May 4. ■ [Before Messrs C. Whitefoord, R.M., J. Ollivier, J. E. Parker, G. L. Lee and W. Inman, J.P’s.] Civil Cases.—Wooding v Duncan, claim £4O, being six months’ interest on the unpaid balance of the purchase money of a certain property. Mr Joynt appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Stringer for defendant. Plaintiff and his wife gave evidence to the following effect:— An order had been received on February 12th last for the amount claimed, drawn by defendant on his “ respected agents” Draper, Charters and Co. It had been presented within throe days to that firm, but was not honoured. Several applications met with the same result. Duncan was then applied to, and he told plaintiff to call once more on Charters, and if the order wan not then paid, to let him know. On March 16th Mr Charters gave a cheque of the firm to plaintiff, and tho order was given up to him. The cheque was paid into plaintiff’s Bank at Christchurch to his credit, but was dishonored. Owing, however, to plaintiff being up country, and the notice being posted to a wrong address, tho dishonoring was not known by plaintiff until April 4th. Steps were immediately taken to inform defendant of what had occurred, and the interest was demanded from him. He refused to pay, and hence the present action. Tho defence was that the order on Draper, Charters and Co. was on all fours with a cheque, as were for the nonce Draper, Charters and Co. with a Bank. If a cheque is dishonored, notice of the dishonor must bo given by its holder without delay to the drawer. Plaintiff bad not given notice of the dishonor until nearly a month had elapsed. On that ground, therefore, plaintiff was out of Court. Also, unless tho order were produced, defendant could not be sued on it, os else it might turn up again by some third party suing on it. And again, the order had not been dishonored. A cheque bad been given for it, which was its discharge. The cheque had been dishonored, but it stood in the same position as the dishonored Bank notes of a broken Bank. The loss bad to fall on the holder. Defendant deposed that when be gave the order. Draper, Charters and Co. had £l5O of his in their possession. They, or whoever represented the firm, had it still. He had often given orders before on them, which were honored. Did not receive notice of Charters’ cheque being dishonored until April 4tb, or three weeks after. Mr Joynt said there had been no laches on plaintiff's part in not advising defendant of tho dishonor of the order. If there had been, the action of defendant on March 12tfa, when be told plaintiff to again present it, condoned it. As for the delay in informing defendant of the cheque being refused payment, it was accidental, and moreover, they were not bound to give the notice. And, lastly, they were not snoing on the order ; their action was for interest on a debt. The Bench here said they had made up their minds. They were of opinion that plaintiff had not contributed by his neglect to the dishonor of the order, and that by its failure defendant remained clearly liable. Judgment for plaintiff for full amonnt, with costs and solicitor’s fee, £3 3s. Martin v Moffatt, £69 10s, being £6O for drawing plans for building a house and supervision, £5 for making bills of quantities, £1 10s for advertising, and £3 for travelling expenses. Mr Stringer was for plaintiff, Mr Garrick for defendant, who paid into Court £36 10s. Plaintiff’s case was that in 1864 he bad done the work above mentioned. The bill was not sent in nntil lately, and then defendant refused to pay more than half the charge. In cross-exami-nation, be said he had been an architect ten years, bad an office, but did not advertise, nor had be his name painted over the door. He had not been articled to an architect, and was was not an M.R 1.8. A. His fees for this job were on the scale published by the institute—--5 per cent, on tho cost of the building, £I2OO. Thought he knew how to draw plans, &c., as well as any member of the institute. He was a carpenter by trade. Had been architect for a good many houses here, but could not recollect his charges. Mr Jameson, who built the house, stated that the plans supplied were well drawn. Bearell deposed to being a duly qualified architect, having been articled tho full time to a M R.1.8.A. The plans, &c., produced wore perfectly good. The charges made by plaintiff he thought reasonable. There was no qualification required in Christchurch for an architect. There wore very few of them hero—that is, members of the institute. For tho defence Mr Garrick called defendant, who deposed that there had been no bargain as to plaintiff’s charge. Plaintiff had always given him to understand that the charge would be small. Defendant had often asked for the account without success. In reply to Mr Stringer, he said he had no fauit’to find with the work done. Mr Styche, builder, stated he often drew plans, &0., for which he charged from 1 per cent, to 2% per cent., according to the expenditure on the building. Thought 2J per cent, would bo generous payment for the work under review. Mr Garrick said that, under the circumstances, defendant thought the amount paid into Court was ample. It was more than 2J- per cent., and they thought a non-professional man should be satisfied with it. Mr Stringer pointed out that plaintiff bad practised as an architect for ten years. The Magistrate said that when people go outside the ranks of professional men in such matters, it mast be to get some advantage ; the advantage should, however, be secured by bargain. In this case there had been no bargain, the work had been well done, and the charges such as others charged. The jc Jg.'ent would be for plaintiff for full au n - ut with costs ; solicitor’s fee, £3 3s; ana expenses of two witnesses, £1 lls 61. Priddy v Blake way, £l3 16s. Mr Holmes for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs- J udgments were also for plaintiffs in Innes and Co. v McKay, £1 5s ; Montgomery and Co. v Hempstock, £9 9s lid; and went by default for plaintiffs in Jones and Co. v Barker, £l4 16s 7d ; same v Hamilton, £1 9s; Anderson v Clark, £l2 lls 6d, and Tanner v Clark, £2O; Garrick and Oowliahaw v Bees was adjourned till May 11th.