THE FIRE ENGINE HOUSE AND TOWER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 299, 4 December 1862, Page 5

THE FIRE ENGINE HOUSE AND TOWER.

\Tb the Editor of the Daily Times.)

; Sir,—Ass the time for receiving designs for the proposed Engine House and Tower is drawing near, I thiuk a ; suggestion (if offered to the "new- Town Board,), would not be out of place. ■<•;.■ Many of: ypur readers will no doubt agree with me, that ■ the proposed site for tbe : building is - not at all an appropriate one—the situation is too high, an d the means of access very difficult. Suppose a fire to break put in the: vicinity of the cutting—first the firemen would have to get up to the engines, then some little time must be spent in getting 'fall right," and then by a circuitous route to arrive at the scene Qfr,>,conflagration./, So much time wasted and great;,difficulty- and ■ inconvenience experienced, without taking .into, consideration the probable loss of property, and what is more, perhaps tbe loss, of life!. -while, the engines are being got down thip hill—and how they will get up again I submit as another problem.; ::? ,i; V -' -"■'■■•■-.- '>■'• ■". : ;T^ r Octagon be a more suitable spqt upbhwhiph to erect -a-^uUdingfiuch-as is contemplated? it is insufficiently large for a market place, and if a? neat structure were pieced in the centre, with a tower carried up to a sufficient height, co .ps. to exhibitiaiclpck (iUu-minated-at i^ight). in other ym&s ; making! the bell tower )«rveWadi^^ would be conferred on,thepublic;andl-jah easy access to the engines;pbtaiped.v This I am of opinion^ not onlypro^e an: ornament to;th6jCity, «ut a great public good, andw^ld|i^ber,t^ labors of ourjgallaßtdefeude^ ; element,; by^a timely arrived withe spotilf o^faf <:f ifi a,iii-^ t- ■ - A:¥^iyAi;''fi^iM'^i: -f s.t-.vtPao BOKo^Pußuoo. ••'

THE TK^ OPS AND^HE LATE FIRE. {To the Editor ofthebvAQo Daiit Tinas.) , SiR,-you, r kindly jraserted a letter in your last Saturday's issue referring to' the above subject forwarded by mk and you st£te„th&ti l Amessenger wl* sent to ascertai&if tbe 'services^ the troops were jTCquprad, pnd ihdy were notj;. t *<*■ I km son y to intrude' Wyour valuable ss«ce, bat I am informed; in eventrof,^ fire poearrink it is the custom tq send doWan\order!yi!itf r <^rtiita the -exa^jpotJandrpW are I^pos%Wej|Jr|s rt »ayttake place' some stormy Jay gr rt&\X*Wtosto%s^? ©ecuVi<& i|^ifc^bi|»af'|othet

'SUPREME COURT. - (Before Hi-* Honor Mr Justick Grbsson.) WKIWKSDAY. DfiOBKBhU'SUD The Court re timed tliis day at 10 o'clock, WHAT IS Atf ARCHITECT] Smith v. Cleve and Others.—Tbe plaintiff in the action nought to recover fchje sura of L6l Is, being the amount due, for work done n« an nreltjtect and bud ler, to defendants. Part of tbe oxount w.is admilted, hr.t ft large number of items wt-re disputed, on i. the ground that plaintiff whs not entitled to charge certain for-s. It was al->o contended for defendants, that in co-isequ- nee of plautiff's neglig nee the store o in Manse-street fell, and there'ore they were not h HaH ■ f tr tlu* amount rla'med. „ Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, aud Mr Giilies for the defend aid . P B'tijamin Smith, plaintiff, deponed *. In Octoher *' 1801, was a«kcd by Messrs Cleve to superintei d cer- h Win men, who were employed excavating cellars in p Manse-street. I was to look at the work 6or 7 times s a day, and wa asreed it should be done for LlO. I a superintended the work, and the men not getting on b rapid yI a Ivised it should be done hy piece-work, s, which was done. At the conclusion I was asked by » defendants to measure up the work. I did so twice, g to satisfy them, and charged a guinea. I,was a bothered three or four days with the transaction. I | wa? asked by Mr Alfred Cleve to supermini the t erection of the stone walls, afterwards, and was en- a gafjvd onit six weeks off and on. I charged L 6 ss, ! 0 ' or 2i per cent on the cost of the whole. I was then h employed to measure up the work, which I found had a been over-charged about L2O. I charged two iruineas. b for tiiat. I prepared working drawings for the g Manse-street store,'at request of defendants. Male t . several alterations also on the original drawing*, nnd t charged for the whole L 7 10s. Prepared plans of the 0 offices in the store, at the request «f Mr Cleve, t and charged three guineas. I advertised for tenders, v for, which I charged one guinea Drew out a build- t ing contract for the contractors and charged two r guineas for it. Superintended erection of the office* c at Mr Cleve's request and charged three guines or 24' f per cent, on the value of the work done. Was asked s to prepare a sketch of a gallery, which I did, and q superintended the erection also, finding material nnd i men. I charged LS, or 5 per cent. He (Mr Cleve) c supplied the stone tf-r Supporting the beams of the i cellar, and I condemned them, but still they were t used, and, the soil being damp, the posts went a through the stone. I was sent for on a Sunday, ai d % told that the store had broken down. I taid it was s just what I had expected. I then superintended s the -repair*, putting in store footings, beams, &c, c for which I charged L5. That was ro more than day ] wages fr a common workman. .The work was ren- \ dered necessu-y by defendant going against my di- f rections. Mr Steel was employed at propping up the \ store, and brought his a count* to me, when I sub- •, mittedthem to defendants. Mr Cleve. made a goo \: t many objection?, and I hid much trouble in arranging \ bet veen them. For this I charged L 2. Prepared t three or four sketch s for offices ndjo niug the store, ] for which I charged X 3 3a. Had then to settle the j contracts fi.-r that, and charged L 2 2s. Superintended j the avctiou of those offices, arid charged L 3 3h. All' ? these charges are fair a^d rea-ona le, and I should j not be overpaid though 1 had LlCOmore. Presented part; of the account to defendants, and they made i Eonic demur, offering to pay me in goods—timber, i iron. «c. I declined, saying*l wanted cash, and ] would pay them cssh for any material I got, ( Cross-examined by Mr Gillies. A building sur-' < veyor and architect is ore who has served his appren- { tieealiip and gone through the routine cf the-piofes- ] fdon. I did so in Birmingham, to Mr Thomas Cox. j architect and buildrr, I have been in business for \ myself a» an architect in Dudley, England.' Prae^ i tiaed also as an architect and builder for 12 months in ■ Victoria. I was not a member of the Architectural- i Institute there. I have -practised in New Zealand ■ since I landed in September, 1861. I was engaged ' with Mr Farley as an auctioneer. Don't wish to be -j a member of the Otago Institute of Architects. I ( never applied to be a member. The duties of an i architect are first to receive from his clicmt some ■ rough idea of the building required and furnish a \ skoteh. and on approval to furnish plans. He would j then advertise for tenders, which are submitted to the < client, who chooses the contractor, and the i rchitect draws up the conditions. He then superintends the < progress of the work, nnd sees that it is put up ac- , cording to contract. When the building is com pic- , ted he looks over it as to quality. The quantity ( is furnishtd by the proprietor, and Only when he re- j quires it does the architect sec if it is correct. Mr Barton here objected that the questions were irrelevant hut his Honor decided against bim. Examination continued.- The architect gives certificate! to the contractor as to woikdone, in order that he'- , may draw money from time to timo. The usual I charge for performing those dutieß. except drawing < agreements and advertisements, is 7 per cent, when ! under £300. The understood charge is not 5 per , cent, unless there be a special agreement. When above £300, the charge usually is fi per cent. Half commission is the usual charge far superintendence by one who has not prepared the plans. It is usual to charge beyond the commiss-ion for time lost in winding up the contract. If. the proprietor is close fisted, there is always a great deal of trouble, and time lost in settling the different accounts. It is part ot the architect's duty to measure the work done, but . the rule is to. pay/for it extra. It is part of his duty to settle disputes between the employer and contractors, and it ik usual to charge extra for this. The proprietor pays this if he calls in the architect. The dispute between Currie and defendant was about 2s. a yard, which defendant said was charged too much. In this case defendant paid the man without reference to me. I had nothing to do with Curries contract, and only gave a certificate as to quality^ I' ; was called by defendant to measure the work and ; settle with Currie. It. was no part of my duty as an architect to do so. My duty was to visit the work three or four times a day, and see that the work was properly dono. They were rubble walls, and it requires a man who understands the work to superintend it. The percentage is the same no matter what kind of work it may be. It was part of my duty to sco that proper materials were used, The specifications were sent from Melbourne I believe. The materials for the vails were provided by Mr Currie. The footing stones were supplied by defendant, and I .warned him myself that they would not do, and when, he declined to change them I told him they would be used on his own refpousibility. I recommended him to ge f blue or suitable stone. The working drawing-? were madeon pine boards for the carpenters to work from. • The plans I Old not lose j I gave them to him. He did not get a man irom Melbourne in consequence of losing thrse plans. I superintended the store from memory after the pans were lost. After the store was completed offices were divided off. and I believe the contract was about LB2. It is usual to charge both as an architect and as a builder if you are employed as architect, and then requested to cau-y out the work as builder. It was not through my negligence that the store came < down. The charge of L 5 tor examining and advising on the premises alter they fell would not came to 15s per day. I considered it a misfortune to defendants, aid charged low accordingly. Mr Steel <ny did the : jomery work of these offices. . I save up to Mr Cleve. ■ the plans of every thing I have done for hiim Only in the case of large and valuable buildings is it customary for the architect to keep the plans or a copy ot them. The entries in the account produced were made two or three at a .time, and not all at once. Actions were pending bettveen the defendants and myself before the account was rendered. Mr Barton then re-examined witness, but the points involved were already fully' Brought out. - The Court then adjourned for half an hour; and on resuming, Mr Gillies proposed that as the question was simplyoneofplamtitt''Brighttoarchitoct'sfea!.itshould 1)3 submitted to two members of the Architectural w-tn4 Q' one t0 be a PPoihtedby each side; - ' i'■"' - His Honor agreed that two professional men would give a more stWactory award than the jury could do. Alter some fvnther discussion as to costs, Mr Parton lor plamtiff, consented to arbitration on cond «oa„ * %r d*L%"Jttnts would pay thecosts of that day at court. " Mr Gillies would not consent to this and the case proceeded. • ; ; , ; ,; w VMB Bicliwd Lambeth an architect of 25 years standing' stated that onworks costing ab6veLso(), the architect ; was paid 5 percent, and, under LSOO he got 74 ncr cent. For simply superviring 2A, per centi, wasnfc ' ways pa id. The, architect is paid that for examining into quality and quantity of work done by the party engaging him. In cross-examination, witness said an architect would not be entitled to ad dilionalpayment for adjusting settlement of accounts. - If an architect be also buiUler, he is not entitled to double charge. It would bo hlsduty not to proceed with the work if his employer did not supply proper material. If the - employer refuses to do so, and-the work gone on with it would be fair to charge for advising and exarainine: work after the building came down. - Mr R. 0. Stratbam,.*nipe years an architect in victoria, was next examined; andgenerally supported •the plaintiff's evidence. j This closed the case for plaintiff. i ;: Mr GilUes addressed the court at coi^iderable length, and called- - i ''•" Mro.-Pinneyj^who deposed to plaintiff having rendered au account m March last, to defendants, but tbe jmrticnlars Ke (witneai) did not recollectj * - -Alfred .Cleye, .deftndant,'pa belng: ewori, stated that there wereno disputes before qi^ after cdmpletioli - S,^®.% n^^>WoH;pliilHW^'c^ed^h^ settle. u-*lKP w? '^ert^Ptttfls ;mtt> the wlirkdoi^ei Pafd; .- I ll? 1 \^ i .^^'toW:^^™iMijrv»t^l^waß|H)t ■ f ft-omMelbouwie,.and plainliff got them hut neverle- . L7B,llte when thestore was: biiikUng: itdd^'the stor^ vas notMOd '.to teplied, ''itia ffoed I $Ptone v <uM it w$ e^iifc&tmt cfit befog iisea that* r the^store fell.^^eoMnwfficl&cy pf tlie plated': ; ,a .^%;;B(»tohV; ftaiftt#w&'rie^ :; w fourttaeLn^^^bosiiieas^vwhileV., ife^W)?^^.S^werodiJ«sduring^ --. v oftJie^^l^cGalled, plaintiff^^atteny^ -i^to mi lOftrtcss fif tiiihflife beto? if, «H! V& v tlfe*« qnite uhtru^taife^te-' : f - „^e^'»lte|s&|la«of the stone?: ; |W® # told plaintiff to sp«e? and make a strong building. *™7 At this »tage, the Comt»i3o\ixtslM to«day.; ': - ■;:: '■'.'■■"r:,:' ■.-;■■■■:>"■■'■■ ■ '". ■ '■ ■ ■■<