DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2524, 11 May 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

» OHBIBTOHUROH. Thcbsday, May 11. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] To-day at noon his Honor gave judgment in the oaae of Hinton and Prioe v Landergan, claim for £l6B 12s, balanoo alloged to be due on a contraot. Mr Loughrey appeared for plaintiff; Mr Peroeval for defendant. Ine evidence had been adduoed at previous sittings,. Mr Perceval, addressing his Honor, said ce (oounsol) had been informed, but could not positively Btate how true the rumor might be, that the plaintiffs had been on the works making certain repairs prior to the arohitect s inspection agreed to. In reply to his Honor, one of the plaintiff s said he had. not done so, or engaged any one to make repairs. In fact, to his knowledge, snob, repairs had not been made. The report was quite unfounded. Hia Honor stated that, if it could be shown that suoh a thing was done prior to the inspection of the works by the architeot, the ground would be laid for an application for a new trial. Delivering judgment, his Honor said that on the previous occasion the following questions had, by conßent of counsel, beeu referred to the architect: —(1) Whether the work had been done in accordance with the terms of the specification, and in a workmanlike manner; and (2) if the work were not so done, to what deductions the defendant might be entitled. The architect had replied that the work was not executed aocording to specification, or in a workmanlike fashion, and that £3B Is lid off the contract would include making a room lift high according to specification. Looking to the evidence, and to the words of the contract, his Honor held that that height was specified in the oontraot. The further -juestionjat issue was, whether the plaintiffs or the defendant was oorreot in swearing that anything beyond the mate rials in the old cottage was to be paid for by the defendant. On that head the evidence of Mrs Landergan appeared the more trustworthy. The amount of the contract was £llO. Deduoting all extras beyond the several oontraots of £3O, £5 10s, and one of £3 for an outhouss, the total amount would be £l4B 10s. Prom this should be deducted the £3B Is lid, leaving a balance of £l2O 8s Id. Judgment was aooordingly given for plaintiff for £l2O 8s Id, with coats ; the architect's costs to be divided between the litigants.