APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 September 1932, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

BISHOP LISTON'S CLAIM. WELLINGTON, September 29. The Court of Appeal is considering the appeal by James M. Liston, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland, from the judgment of Justice Herdman, delivered at Auckland in August last, in the action brought by him against H. R. Jenkins, A.B. Crawford, and. Waterhouse all of Auckland, formerly trading a’s the Drury Brick and T i! e Company. This litigation commenced in Januuary la~t by appellant filing a statement of claim in which he alleged that in May, 1930, he became a party to a contract under which the respondents agreed to supply 125,00 facing bricks, to be used by his builder, Thomas Clements,' in the erection of a convent known as the Star of the Sea Convent at Howick. He averrd that the bricks had been supplied subject to conditions which had broken, and claimed damages, £4OO, being the estimated sum required to remedy the defective exterior walls and £2OO 10-s resulting from being compelled to depart from the architect’s original scheme.

In due course, the defence was filed. Pour months later, appellant filed i an amended claim, in which he alleged there was a contract under which respondents were bound to supply the bricke. A breach of the conditions was again charged against the respondents and £1,275 was claimed by avay of damages, this sum representing the estimated cost of pulling down the exterior walls of the building and re-erecting them with suitable bricks. To' this claim, respondents replied, denying that they were ever parties to the contract with appellant, and stating they did not. enter into a contract for the supply of bricks with the contractor Clements, who was to erect tlie building. They declared that between themselves and appellant no privity of contract ever existed. They were sub-contractors only and", rasponsib'e to Clements alone. Justice Herdman upheld the contentions of the respondents holding that appellant had failed to prove any ipri'vity of contract between himself and them, and entered a non-suit, Avith costs.

From this judgment, Bishop Liston is now appealing. Tlie Court delivered judgment without calling upon the counsel for the respondents. The Chief Justice stated that} counsel for the appellant had rightly admitted that h e could succeed only if he could shoAV that there avds a contract between the appellant and the respondents whereby the respondents guaranteed the quality of their bricks. The only evidence of such contract was the evidence of the eon-