Building Dispute Sequel.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 86, 22 September 1915, Page 2

Building Dispute Sequel.

I TO THE EDITOR.] Sir,—There are some errors, probably through inadvertence, in your report of my evidence in the case Mountjoy v. Lakeman, but 1 am quite sure that you desire accuracy in your columns, so I venture to request you to publish thi3 letter in an early issue of your paper. The report states that an undimensioned plan drawn by myself was produced in Court. I am prepra?d tu place a sum of live pounds sterling at your dismal for the benefit of any charitable irstitution may s:lect provided it can be shown that the plan in question is r.ot dimensioned, and at the same time having you bear in mind that the upper story walls are of equal dimensions to these of the lower story and the balcoay of the same width as tr.e v.randab.

The repoit also stats that I 3aid that "the architect was to blame for the whole ol the delay owing to lack cf dimensions on the plans." Such a statement would have "been incorrect, the fact bein? that the contractor reckoned tiie total delay due to the difficulty in setting out the work at only three days. 1 am at a loss to understand why thid matter was so persistently dwelt upor, as it was only one amongst many of the causes of the delay that took place. I think I am in at Uast as good a position as anyone to form an accurate opinion as tn the primary cause of the difficulties that arose, namely, the estimate given to the owner when the work was projected. Had the owner been told at the first that a house to the plan and specification proposed and afterwards prepared would be good value for £650 the architect would have baen in a position to advise his client not to accspt a tender £l5O below the true value of the work. A low estimate and a price that spelt disaster account largely for the trouble that followed. -I am, etc.,

JOHN KOUTLY. Auckland, 20th September, 1915.