Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7742, 18 February 1905, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

ritlOAY, FEBRUARY 19. ! (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) ■ J I'D!! MENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. ! Burgess and Frusef v. Chiis. A. 1 Spiers.—Claim £22 lis lid, costs j£2 Ills. Grayson ami Cock, v. W. Shaw, jun., oil llawera. —Claim £1 i (Is (kl, costs 1 "is. Same v. A. G. Knight.—Claim £1 Is 3d, costs 13s. George v. P. Hansen, of Waitara.— Claim £7 2s (id, costs 18s (id. Mr C. it. Weston for plaintiff. j DEPENDED CASES.

Sanderson v. Janiie:-on.—Mr Qnilliam appeared "for the plaintiff, and Mr Gray (Wilson and Gray) for the defendant. This 1 was a claim of £9 lis (id in respect 1 of fees for preparation of plans for additions to'la residence ■ according to l.instruel ions given by defendant to plaint ill' in October, 1902.

James Sanderson, architect, gave evidence as to being instructed by defendant to prepare the plans ill; question, and he called for lenders, the lowest being for £220. Defendant} had only wished to expend £250, but witness said the work could not be done under about £3OO. The tenders were opened in defendant's presence, and no objection was thou raised to the plans. No further action was taken at the lima. Subsequently certain alterations to the house were 'lmade by a builder. He had sent in his charges, and de-' fendant had admittedl her liability, but asked for time to pay. The charges were based on the sca.c adopted by the Institute of Architects.

To Mr Gray : The question of altering the front of the house was not mentioned : till idler the tenders were 'received. Was instructed to call tenders. No object ions were raised when witness measured the ground. Denied that defendant took exception.to the plans. Had authority to call for the tenders. The plana were not made use of.

To the S.iM. : It was no fault of witness' that the building was not erected according to the plans. He left it to his Worship to decide whether the plans l weroi worth the money.

Mr Gray, for. the dofence, called the defendant,

Ilertha C. Jamicson, a married woman, who said she asked plaintiff to measure her cottage lor alterations, and then witness talked over the proposed alterations, witness telling plaintiff that all she had to pend was £3OO at thejioulside. Did not authorise tenders to be called, but expected to see the plan first. Did not see the plans till the tenders were opened, and then witness said it was a "duffer" of a plan. Plaintiff was annoyed, picked up his plan,,'and went away. Had stipulated for two rooms in the front, and two at tho back, but the plans did not provide for any rooms in the front.

To the S.M. : The plan was useless, as it did not follow out her instructions. Plaintiff refused to alter the plans. Got the work she wanted done by a builder for £31.2, including a separate cottage. John Jamieson, husband of last witness, stated that on seeing the plan he told .plaintiff it was no good. Plaintiff got into a temper, and told defendant to get the work done.

His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff with costs £1 Is, A BUILDERS' DISPUTE.

.fames Salt v. Borough Council,— This was 1( claim for £l3 8s Id, of which £l2 5s represented the amoiint deducted by :|defendants for cost of completing the East End fire station. Practically the question involved was the interpretation placed on the specifications as' to whether the word "external" covered the whole of the exterior to the ground line or lo the floor line only. Mr Roy appeared for the plaintilYi and Mr Quilliani, l'or the defendant council.

Haintiff said tile tracing given to him showed only the ground plan and elevation from the street level. I nless specially specified in the conanything below the streot level tvould be taken to be blocks only, and not covered in. It would be absurd to put close weatherboards on studs 4ft apart. At the suggestion of Mr Quilliam, His Worship decided to inspect tho locus in quo.

On resuming phiiiuilY's cross-exatu-inatton was continued.

His Worship said the question was whether or not the basement was, by the contract, to be covered in. ■Mr lloy admitted that there was no dispute as to the price for covering Ul Ihe. bjisenient. if, J.iuder . tlm contract, the work was included.

Captain !•", liellringer gave evidence as to a conversation with tilt' engineer as to the light of the adjoining premises not being interfered with, the latter stating that in [Measuring for painting he only calculated from the floor line. -Mr Hoy then called 011 c of the other tenderers as lo his construction of the spec-it',cn'lions, but Mr Quilliam objected on the ground thai the witness was called to interpret a written document, The Magistrate said that the construction of documents was for the Coijrt to decide, but if the terms \vese ambiguous evidence on the point Hy the bjiildinfl trado might be serviceable.

| Mr Quilliain contended that the engineer was the arbiter as to the meaning of anything in the contract. His Worship decided to admit the evidence. Robert) W. Bond. Edward Stevenson, R. Coleman, and A. A. I'ikett, builders, then guvc evidence on the point. \ Mr Quilliam, for the defence, called E. llarvey Gibbon, borough engineer, who said he had been an architect and engineer for over 25 years, lie defined the side of a house as beiing the structure from the pile np- | wards. Jack studs did not take | tliu place of piles, but were a se- | paratet- .structure on the top of the places tp have weatherboards nailed to studs 4ft apart. The speciiication intended that one end and the sides should be covered iu from the oaves to th-o piles. To Mr Roy ; All other conditions under the bye-laws being complied with, witness would pass builders' j>lunh shfjwipg jack .studs -lit apart. T L) Worship : I'hp plan was provided by the fire brigade, and witness only drew £he'spuci%at|on. Mr Quilliain addressed "jibe Opurt in support of his contention that the engineer's decision must lie linal, and quoted cases'(to bear out his argument.

Mr Hoy replied, and the Magistrate reserved his decision,