CARPENTERING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2748, 21 June 1924, Page 2

CARPENTERING DISPUTE.

A case which took up the greater part of yesterday afternoon’s business at the S.TVr. Court, and then only terminated owing to the failure of light, was the civil case E. Tollison (Mr Ilollings) v. A. P. Easton (Mr Bergin), plaintiff claiming the sum of £53 10/-, allegedly due to him as contract price for certain house for defendant. Air Ilollings outlined the case at length. The Town Clerk was the first witness, who. formally produced plans of the building alterations as passed by tlie Council. John F„ Tollison, in evidence, said that Air Easton had asked him to prepare plans and specifications for certain alterations to his residence. This had been done and the amount it would cost for the work was £2OO. Defendant then asked plaintiff if he would undertake the work, doing the labour only, defendant to find material. Witness said he would and was asked to draw up a price for the contract. He submitted in writing to Mr Easton a contract whereby tie agreed to do the whole of the job for £53 10/-, defendant lo find material. At the time defendant asked him if he thought he could do the work for the price stated as it seemed very low. Witness replied that lie had made the price as low as possible and if he lost on tlie job be supposed defendant would stand by him. This defendant agreed lo do and plaintiff started work. He worked for a fortnight, when defendant asked him -if lie wanted anything to go on with on account. Witness said he would like £l3 whioi was paid him by cheque. Another fortnight elapsed and lie asked defendant for £lO on account. Defendant hesitated and then said “How do we stand?” Witness replied: “You know how we stand. You have paid me £l2 on account and the total amount is £53 10/-.” Defendant then replied “I’m only going to pay you 2/0 an hour.” Witness refused to accept that and defendant put witness's tools that were inside •* the verandah and he went home. On the Monday morning lie submitted an account to defendant for time done at 3/9 an hour, not then knowing that he had any legal claim on a contract. Defendant refused to accept this and witness saw a solicitor. He then went back and offered to complete the contract at the contract price. Defendant refused to allow him continue.

To Mr Bergin: He was competent to prepare plans and specifications. His plans had been passed by the Council. When lie submitted his contract price Mr Easton said: “Do you think you can do it for that price?” Witness replied: “Yes, provided you give me a hand with the lifting.” Air Easton did this whenever necessary.

Further questioned by Mr Bergin. witness said that sometime between the first payment and the time when he asked for a second amount on account, Mr Easton said to him "It’s a good job you haven’t got this job on contract.” Witness replied that as far as he knew it was a contract. Defendant then mumbled something which witness did not catch as he was very hard of hearing. Witness had had several half days off. Admitted he had previously been employed by Mr Easton to turn a wash-house round at his faiher's,property, at which job he had received 2/0 an hour. This work was intricate work, the other required no skill. When discussing the mat ter with defendant before the commencement' of the work, Mr Easton had said he could please himself whether lie did the work by ion tract or by day labour. He had taken ttie work on as contract work.

Mr Bergin further examined and questioned plaintiff with regard to a statement of claim submitted and other matters.

W. Adams, of Foxton, said that lie had been a builder and contractor for 45 years in New Zealand, lie considered Tollison’s price a very reasonable price. He had inspected the work done by Tollisou and estimated the cost for labour only, which price lie submitted to the court. Another seven days would finish the job. He said that on day labour the builder frequently was allowed the merchant’s discount. This was not so in contract work, however. At this stage, owing to the failing light, Lhe case was adjourned until July ISth.