A PLUMBING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2849, 21 February 1925, Page 3

A PLUMBING DISPUTE.

A dispute over tlie cost of workdone in connection with the plumbing fittings in connection with the fitting up of a restaurant, was ventilated at the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., alien John MeColl, plumber, proeceded against G. A. Coughtrey tor the sum of £3B 4/6, allegedly due to him for work done. Mr Bergin appeared for plaintiff and Mr Grant represented defendant. Mr Bergin, in outlining tbe case stated that in December last plaintiff had been requested by defendant, to do some plumbing work in connection with the fitting up of a restaurant locally. No price had been agreed upon. Tbe account for the-work had been duly rendered and defendant bad disputed it. . The plaintiff held that it was fair and reasonable and defendant paid into court what he considers a fair and reasonable cost. Mr Grant said that defendant bad obtained estimates from two outside, independent plumbers for tbe work since tbe dispute bad arisen and they would prove that plaintiff’s bill of cost was unreasonable. Tbe present account submitted by plaintiff was, however, different from the one he had originally rendered.

David Watson, master plumber, of Palmerston N. gave evidence as to having inspected the work done. His estimate for doing tlie work was £29 17/6, as against plaintiff’s £4l 4/6. Detailed prices were then compared to show the difference in ihe estimates. In opinion of witness the work could be done within a week. He would be prepared to come from Palmerston and do the work at his estimated cost. He would sell material to plaintiff at prices quoted less ten per cent. £8 18/a week was a fair profit for a master plumber. A. G. Coughtrey, in evidence, said that be bad asked plaintiff the price of one or two articles when mentioning the job to him and as the juices quoted by him were below cost bo did not. argue, but let him go on wiili the work. Plaintiff told him lie could do the work for about £2O. Defendant was held up and inconvenienced by plaintiff. Witness did not alter his instructions. A sborj while after the job .was completed a note was put under bis door by McColl’s boy asking for a cheque for £ls on account. He replied that; if plaintiff brought in bis account be would settle the whole amount. The account was brought in on the following Monday. Witness objected as soon as he saw the bill. One item, tlint of installing and supplying a sink was down twice. Plaintiff admitted i( was a. mistake when pointed out. to him and crossed off £1 where he should have crossed out £1 10/-. Witness fold plaintiff that he was gelling mi independent plumber to estimate the- cost off the work and later told him the estimate was £3O, which amount fie offered MeColl in settlement of ihe account.

To Mr Bergin: The sink was fitted by Air P. J. Jack and in the account. there was an item for fitting and supplying sink. J. Penkin, master plumber of Palmerston N., said his estimate for doing the work was £3O 4/9, for which sum he would come from Palmerston N. and do the work. He also gave details of preparing his estimate. • John AlcColl. in evidence, said that he obtained his material from A. and T. Burt’s of Wellington. His account was a fair one. He had employed a drain layer at £1 a day. Mr Grant: How many days did you employ him? —One or two. How much did you pay him"? —£1 a day. Yes, but what was the total amount you paid him? —I couldn’t say without looking up my wages book. Mr Grant asked why the account had been reduced by £3 4/6. Witness *. I wanted a cheque. Continuing he said that he had made out the statement and sent it in to defendant when he asked for it and waited about for settlement of if as Coughtrey said he would settle it when he received the account. He received no word, so he sent in another letter offering to take off five per cent as he wanted a cheque. This was not accepted. They then went through the items and brought the account down to £3B. Summing up, the S.M. said that it was difficult to know which estimate to take. The outside estimates varied inasmuch as if the labour of one was taken and the cost of material of the other they would be somewhere in the vicinity of AleCoil’s cost. MeColl had reduced his estimate to £3B and he had done the work and knew what trouble he had experienced. Under the circumstances he did not think there was sufficient evidence to reduce the account further. Judgment was entered for £3B and costs.