DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2474, 11 March 1882, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.

OHBIBTOHDROH. Friday, Maboh 10, [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] HINTON AND PRICE Y A. DANDBBGAN, Mr Holmes for the plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for the defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £l6B 12s 10d, alleged to be due on a contract for building a house. The following evidence was taken in this case yesterday after we wont to press:— William Henry Price, partner of the last witness, and William Hinton, gave corroborative evidence. James Tricker confirmed the testimony of the plaintiff Hinton in reference to damage done to the house after it was given into possession of the defendant, and deposed to the satisfactory nature of the work done. Thomas Cane, architect, said be had examined the building, and considered that, generally speaking, the work was very fairly done. There was nothing to wlioh ho could in fairness have taken exception. John Kerr, carpenter, deposed that he was present when Mrs Landergan gave instructions for certain extras. The work was done in the best possible manner, considering that old timber was used.

Thomas Oulleen, carpenter, gave similar evidence.

James Amos, plumber and tinsmith, deposed that Mrs Landergan objected to the quality of some of the spouting witness was using, and said if it were put up she would pull it down again. She put her foot on a piece 18ft long and doubled it up. The spouting was fit to be used for the purpose. This was all the evidence for the plaintiffs.

.Mr Joynt stated the defence. The building was bo badly constructed that the defendant did not fee! justified in taking it over, and Mrs Landergan had frequently complained of the manner in which the work was being done. He called— John Whitelaw, architect, who deposed that be bad carefully examined the building, and was of opinion that the work was not well done. The building was plainly askew, there being a deviation of 6f inches in one room. The witness gave evidence at length as to other particulars in which the work was defective.

The Court adjourned at 530 p.m. nut; Monday next, at 2 p.m.