DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2501, 13 April 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, April 12. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] HINTON AND PRICE V. A. LANDBEOAN.

Mr Holmes for the plaintiffs, and Mr Joyntfor the defendant. This was an action to recover £l6B 12s under a contractor building a house. The defence was that the work was not properly performed. The case was partly hoard on a previous Court day, when evidence was led for the plaintiffs, and it was adjourned for the atten dance of a witness who was required by the defendant to give evidence as an expert, Jessie Landergan, wife of the defendant, was examined at length by Mr Joynt. The witness deposed that she complained on several occasions to the plaintiffs that the work was not being properly done, and gave evidence as to matters of detail.

The witness was examined at length by Mr Holmes.

A. Landergan, the defendant, also deposed to several particulars in which the work of the house had been improperly done, and was examined at length in regard to the terms of the contract and other matters.

Richard James Pierce gave evidence as to the paperhanging of some of the rooms of the house, which he said was not done in a workmanlike way. James G. Clark, carpenter, deposed that he was present when Mr Cane, the architect, inspected the house for the plaintiffs. The time occupied was only about three-quarters of an hour. There were no measurements or notes taken, and in witness’s opinion Mr Cane did not make a proper architect’s inspection. He observed that some of the flooring had shrunk, and it was in such a condition that it would have to be relaid. The ridging of the roof was off the level about 2in.

At this stage the Court adjourned until ten o’clock this morning.

Thursday, Apeil 13 [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] The Court sat at 10 o’clock. BABEBB V M’IBAN.

This case stood over from the previous day. Mr Holmes now stated that it had been settled out of Court. HINTON AND PBIOB T XAN'DEBGAN.

Mr Holmes for the plaintiff, and Mr J oyat for the defendant. This was an action to recover £l6B 12a lOd, for building a house, and was partly heard on the previous day. The evidence for the defence was now resumed. Joseph O. Maddison, architect, examined by Mr Joynt, deposed that on the Ist February he made an inspection of the house in question. He did so as a friend, and on the exprots understanding that ha was not to give evidence in a court of law. He was ill at the time of his visit, and did not remember what he saw. Took notes at the time, but would not be able to recollect anything even if he referred to them.

Mr Joynt asked that after that statement he might he allowed to treat this witness as an Jadverse witness, and to cross-examine him.

Mr Holmes objected. His Honor said the statement of the witness that after looking at his notes he had no recollection whatever of what they contained, was a very extraordinary one, and he thought Mr Joynt might be allowed to cross examine him. Examination continued—After looking at the entry on my notes, “ All hearths bad,” I have no recollection whatever as to the character of the hearths. I recollect nothing at all about it. Cannot say of what they were composed, or whether they were white or black. With regard to the eitry on my notes, “ Flooring shrunk,” I do not remember whether the flooring was shrunk or not. The note. “ Kitchen lining very much shrunk and badly done,” I have no recollection of. I suppose I must have made it from observation, but I really do not recollect anything about it. The witness was asked as to numerous other entries on his notes descriptive of various portions of the work being badly done, bub he denied having any recollection .whatever of the state of the work referred to. He was very ill at the time, and could not remember. Hia Honor asked whether there was any use in proceeding with the examination of this witness, when he repeated so distinctly that ho could not remember anything. It seemed a most singular lapse of memory. It would have been well if the defendant had secured some other professional evidence. The further examination of.the witness would only be a waste of time. Mr Jojnt said it was an exhibition of something worse than a waste of time. Of course be had not the slightest idea that the witness would deny all recollection of his notes. The witness was then examined by Mr Holmes as to the cost of repairing the portions of the work that were alleged to be defective, and as to the cost of a building similar to the one in question. Mr Holmes called rebutting evidence as to the state of the piles supporting the house and of some concrete steps. Mr Joynt adressea the Court. His Honor suggested that an architect should be appointed by the Court to inspect

the home, and to report ag to whether it had been built according to the specification, and, if not, in what respects and to what extent had the plaintiffs failed in the performance of their contract.

Mr Holmes submitted that as the case had already been before the Court four days, andjas the costs on both sides would probably amount to nearly the whole of the sum in dispute, it would be better if his Honor would give judgment at once.

His Honor said the course he proposed would not involve any further costs, as after receiving the report of the architect he would give a written judgment. Judgment deferred accordingly. This was the last case on the list, and the Court adjourned.