R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2112, 5 October 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTEIITON—THIS DAY.

(Before H, A. Stratford, R.M) CIVIL CASES. Several cases were ordered to stand over till 2 o'clock. T. James v Isaac Bairstow and W. Hercock, trustees for Mrs Reid—Claim L 8 7s Od. Mr Skipper for plaintiff and Mr Beard for the defendants, who pleaded not indebted. Mr Skipper, in. opening the case, stated that the claim arose out of a building contract on the Taratalii, A chimney in the house was built with a twist,' according to specifications, and it was for that item that defendants refused to pay. Thomas James sworn, stated that he was the contractor tor the erection of a building for defendants, He produced the agreement and specifications. The latter provided that the chimneys should lißve a twist above the gathering, so as to shut out day-light. He employed one Oliver, a bricklayer, to put up the chimneys. Tho architect, Mr Fannin, saw the chimneys and having got some slight alteration made, passed it. The painters had fire in it for a week, and it did not smoke. Mr Fannin passed all the work, but defendant afterwards altered some doors which had warped (Architect's certificate produced), He received a cheque for the balance, all but the reservation of £2O. The exceptions mentioned in the certificate do not refer to the subject of the action. He was afterwards told that the chimney smoked when the fire was drawn forward on the oven. He afterwards received a written note from Mr Fannin on tho subject, and sent down two bricklayers, who said they could not stop the smoking. Messrs Barker and Williams were afterwards employed, They pulled it down to the hearth, and rebuilt it with straight flues. He afterwards received a cheque for Lll 6s (id from Mr Fannin, being the balance of tho L2O, after deducting the cost of re-building the chimney, and an architect's fee of a guinea,

Cross-examined by Mr Beard: He could not aivear that the width of the flues was exactly according to specifications. They measured moro than 9in by 9in. Mr Fannin never cautioned him that the brickwork would have to be better dono or pulled down again. When the chimney was fjnished> told him to cut away the corners of the bricks to open the flue as much as possible. Witness did not remember being told that if the chimney did not work then it would have to be pulled down again. Abraham Oliver deposed to having built the chimney according to specifications, and that neither he nor plaintiff knew at first what was meant by "twisted" chimney.

This concluded the caso for the plaintiff. For the defence it was sought to prove that the chimney had not been built according to specifications, and that the architect, Mr Fannin, had spoken to plaintiff about it, Several witnesses wero called. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. (IEFT SITTING)