BUILDING A HOUSE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 December 1921, Page 7

BUILDING A HOUSE.

A VERBAL AGREEMENT. CLAIM BY CONTRACTOR. A dispute between builder and owner over the erection of a dwelling house occupied the Supreme Court, New Plymouth. yesterday, the evidence revealing that the parties had been relying on . a . P ure ly verbal agreement. The plaintiff was Jesse Simmons, building contractor, of Stratford, who sought to recover £202 4s 6d from Ernest A. Ward and Eliza A. Ward, the amount being the balance of £llBl 13s 2d which had been owing for the erection of a dwelling house. The following jury was empanelled: J- h. Crothers, J. T. Heal, A. Pearce, and D. H. Bishop. Tn opening the case, Mr. Coleman said the action had been brought against both Ward and his wife, as there was some doubt as to who was legally bound, for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s version was to the effect that towards the latter part of last year he was approached by the defendant Ernest Ward in eonneetion with building a house. Ward represented to the plaintiff that he owned a section in Stratford. From September right on to November there’ had been discussions between Simmons and Wiard. and it was finally agreed that plaintiff was to build the house. Unfortunately,, from the point of view of both parties, nothing was reduced to writing, but if the arrangements could, be proved, said counsel, the fact that they were not in writing would not matter materially. Just before Simmons actually started Ward, mentioned that he would like materials in an old wooden cottage worked into the new house. In reply to plaintiff. Ward had said there would be about £l5O worth of material in the old house, and Simmons then indicated that he would take the job on a ten per cent, basis, and told. Ward that if there was . £l5O worth of material in the old building the cost would be another £9OO in cash plus his ten per cent. When Simmons went to order timber from the merchants he found he could not get lieart material, which lie desired to use in the outer walls. The question of using concrete for the outside walls was then mentioned, and Ward told Simmons it would cost £lOO wore. Ward authorised this alteration.

When Simmons commenced the work he found that practically very little of the timber was of any use, and the actual quantity would be about £3O in value. During the erection of the house Ward and his wife were on the site every day, and gave certain instructions for alterations and extra work. This, of course, added to the cost, and if it had been a contract Simmons could have objected, but as the work was being done on a ten per cent, basis the Wards had a right to give ttaue orders. Mrs. Ward, who lived near the new house’, also checked the men’s time sheets regularly until she had a “row” with the foreman, and then she went to Simmons for the books. The house was completed early in April, and Jts it had not been commenced till January 10, counsel did. not think plaintiff could be accused of trying to stretch out the job. In his evidence, plaintiff said that after he had finished the house and had received about £707 in payments for the work, he learned for the first time through Ward’s solicitor (Mr. Moss) that he was looking on the work as a straight-out contract. Ward, on being interviewed personally, denied this. He told witness that he had not then received the money from the State Advances Department, through whom he was being financed, r>ut if he did not get the advance he would apply for a soldier’s loan. Later on there was a meeting between witness; Ward and his wife and their solicitor, but no agreement could be come to. Witness'* then offered to buy the house from Ward for £l4OO, but he wanted £1606. Ward had offered to pay witness £990 cash, but "of course he had to refuse this, as he had paid out more for material and wages. The actual amount received was £979.

Examined by Mr. Spratt he denied ever saying that he could build Ward a house for £B5O. He had never claimed that he could build more cheaply than any other builder in Stratford, nor had he said that he was building Ward’s house for £950. Other witnesses called for plaintiff were B. R. Murray, of Christchurch (previously foreman for Simmons), C. Garlick, mechanic, of Stratford, E. G. Riddle, painter and paper-hanger, E. Cprlett, painter, C. Moore, builder, J. W. Boon, builder, J. D. Healy, architect, and Mrs. E. Simmons, wife of plaintiff. The evidence of Johann Mehrtens, a former employee of Simmons’, which had been taken at Tauranga, was also read. The first witness for the defence was D. R. Turnbull, tailor, of Stratford, who said he had spoken to Simmons about getting a house built on the lines of Ward’s (which was then in course of erection), but with certain improvements. Simmons said he could do it for not more than a thousand pounds. D. Sisarich, restaurant proprietor, gave particulars of a conversation he had with Simmons concernig Ward's house. At the time Simmons was working on the premises next to witness, and he advised witness to go in for a concrete house, saying that he had just finished a house for Bob Ward for £9OO. To Mr. Coleman: There had been no quarrel between witness and Simmons while the latter was working next door to witness’ shop, but might have had a slight talk with him over the subject in dispute (the removal of a fuel bin). The Court adjourned at 5.45 till 10 a.m. to-day, when the case will be resumed.