DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2269, 11 July 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Mondat, July 11. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] Oa the application of Mr Hutton, the case Nolyueux T Hay was adjourned till ten o’clock oa Tuesday morning. HATOHAED T. MOOEE. Claim £193 12s 6d, balance due on a bu'lding contract. Tendered £74 12s 6d, end costs £3 3s, Mr Spackman for plaintiff. Mr Stringer for defendant. Mr Spackman stated that although the plaintiff, who was suing to recover the full amount of the contract, had not finished the work within the specified time, and he had not done so on account of certain alterations made in the design after the work had been begun. Mr Stringer contended that the alterations did not invalidate the contract, as the plaintiff had agreed to do the whole of the work by the contract date (Februsvy 21st), and he submitted “ the whole of the work ” included any alterations. C, Hatohard, the plaintiff, deposed that he had taken a contract for a house at Opawa for the defendant, and on account of alteration to the lesn-to attached, he had to mix certvn plaster, which had to lie s ; x days before it could be used. The original intention was to match-line the shop, subsequently defendant ordered it to bo plastered. By this alteration fourteen days longer than the original six days were necessitated. According to the specification the woodwork of the room could not be fixed till the plastering was finished. A further delay of four days accrued owing to bis having to make a different kind of door to that originally specified. Consequently two doors were made, as the first did not su : t. The door was put up after February 21at. The rant of the house would be about 15s a week.

By Mr Stringer The alteration from matob l; ning to plastering the shop was made after the contract was signed. The plastering was finished some time in March. It could not ho done within the contract time. A difficulty was experiencedin getting the kind of sand specified. Had he known of the alteration, he would not have signed the contract. Mr Jacobsen, the architect, had told him he would not be fined if he was a week over the time. He was over the time by more than five weeks. It would have been impossible to have done the plastering within the contract time, even if he had all the material on hand, and employed more hands. He employed from three to six men on the work at different times. The extra plastering of the shop would take four days longer than the match-lining. Had be employed ?> ore men it would not have forwarded the work much. Six men could hardly find room to work in the place. Mr Jacobsen objected to two of his men, but the work was not thereby much delayed, as he hurried the work on after they left. The alterations necessitated a delay of at least three weeks.

Anderson deposed he had examined the house at Opawa with plaintiff. This witness corroborated the former evidence.

Mr Moore, the defendant, deposed that he had informed Mr Hatohard of the additional work required in the shop before he signed the contract. The men wore not half a day plastering the kitchen wall, and the plaster used was that mixed for the rest of the house It was all done the same day. The second coat of plaster was being put on the rest of the house at that time. The plastering work was all done in succession. No fresh plaster was mixed for the kitchen. Tho work was done intermittently,sometimes no one working. From the 2nd till the 15th March the builder could not be found, and tho workmen could not get any material to go on with. About a dozen times he went there, and found only one carpenter working. He complai <d to tfca builder when he could find him, and also complained to the architect. By Mr Spackman—He was not present when the agreement was signed. He thought the two coats of plaster wore put on in the kitchen in one day, but he would not swear it. Would swear he did not tell tho plaintiff to let the plaster wait a day or two till it was properly mixed. He knew that plaster wanted about fourteen days to be ready for use, but the kitchen was plastered in an exceptional manner. Ho asked plaintiff to take some glass from him, but the former declined. The building when finished would fetch a rental of 25s a week. By Mr Stringer—Tho alteration to the plastering in the kitchen was about three square yards. George Evans deposed—He was a carpenter employed on the building, and took a subcontract from Mr Hatchard, by whose neglect to provide material he was delayed about three weeks, his contract being for labor only. Complained to Mr Hatchard, who repeatedly promised to send down material, and often disappointed him by not sending it. Had spent a day and a half on one occasion trying to find him.

By Mr Spackman—He was dismissed by the architect, but subsequently re-employed by the defendant. Mr Hatohard had on more than one occasion given him orders for material, which he procured and took to the building. The house was plastered throughout with the first coat at one time, and a certain time elapsed before the second followed, three coats being put on altogether. An assistant of the last witness deposed to various delays, corroborating the previous evidence. He supposed they never lost more than two days at a time.

IT. R. Jacobsen, architect, deposed that he knew the house, but as he had not been inside the kitchen, he could not give any definite evidence on the question before the Court. Counsel having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients, His Honor thought that the evidence showed plaintiff did not use proper diligence, but was entitled to some claim for extras. Ho would allow fourteen days, instead of five weeks as claimed. That is, that the sum of £lO be added to the amount paid into Court. The question of costs being raised by Mr Snaokman, His Honor thought, as plaintiff did not come into Court with clean hands, they must be disallowed. [Left sitting.]