SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5638, 25 April 1879, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thursday, April 24. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The case of the Wellington Athemeum v. Maco and Arkcll came on at 10 o’clock this morning at tho Supremo Court before his Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury of twelve. Mr. Conolly, with him Mr. Edwards, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Travers for the defendants. The action was for recovery of £SOO under a bond given by Messrs. Mace and Arkell for the due performance of a contract entered into in November, 1876, by Mr. James Ranson, builder, to erect the Athenmum Institute for £6359 by the 15th August, 1877. The building was not completed ou tho above date, and Ranson continued to carry on the work till the 18th September, 1877, when he ceased to have anything to do with the building, and shortly afterwards became bankrupt. The work was continued by the plaintiffs, and was finally completed on the 13th November, 1877, at an expenditure, as stated, of £363 3s. lid. beyond the contract price. Ranson, under the condition of the contract, mado himself liable to a penalty of £5 per day for every day the work should extend beyond the time specified for completion. The defence was that Ranson had partly executed extra work, and that under terms of the contract he became entitled to an extension of time, and that the time which reasonably ought to have been allowed had not expired when he became bankrupt. And for further defence that there was enough of Ranson’a money left in the hands of the plaintiffs to complete the building. The jury retired at a quarter to five, and came in at a quarter to six with the following verdict :—That £5 a day became payable from the 15th August to the 18th September, as liquidated damages under the contract. That the plaintiffs had no money of Ranson’s in their hands, and on the tenth issue, “ that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover nothing, inasmuch as they had neglected to retain the percentages, amounting to £I3OO, from tho progress payments made to the contractor.” The jury by this evidently intended it to be implied that they considered the conduct of the plaintiffs’ architect had been improper in certifying for large sums in excess of the amounts to which the contractor was entitled by way of progress payment* thereby inflicting a loss and hardship on the sureties, which would have been avoided had the architect done his duty properly. In obedience, however, to tho direction of the Judge, the jury afterwards found on the tenth issue ns follows : —On the first count, £363 3s. I Id.; ou the second count, £l7O ; total, £533 3s. lid., subject to questions of law; but the plaintiffs can only recover £SOO in the whole, notwithstanding the verdict for the large sum. The Court then adjourned to 10 a.m. to-day.