O'DEA V. GRAHAM.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2243, 23 November 1886, Page 3

ODEA Y. GRAHAM.

The following extended report of this case is taken from Saturday's Herald :— O'Dkav. W. A. Graham. —Claim, £100. Mr. J. O'Meagher for plaintiff, and Mr. T. Cotter for the defendant. This was a claim for professional services rendered as an architect in preparing estimates, &c, for public buildings at Hamilton. It was for £112 10s, but was reduced to £100 to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. The particulai s were as follows :—: — Estimates lor wooden building, £3700 at I per cent, £27 los : do. for concrete £4900 £3(> 15s ; do. for brick £6400, £4S ; total, £112 10*. It seemed that the Borough Council of Hamilton had been in communication with the Government for a loan to erect public buildings, and the plaintiff had prepared plans for the same under instructions from the Mayor (Mr Graham), with the consent of the Council. A sum of five guineas had been paid by the Council for the plans. Estimates for buildings in concrete, wood, and brick had since been prepared for buildings. It was for the usual percentage of preparing estimates that the claim was made. It was brought against the defendant in his private capacity and not against him as Mayor. James ODea, architect, deposed that on January he met Mr Gelling, town clerk, who informed him that he had a letter for him. The Mayor came alon£, and it was stated that the Council had agreed to raise £6000 on loan for public buildings which would be principally oocupied by the Government. In return for this concession, the Council were to eet about 170 acres of domain land. Defendant inquired for his terms for preparing plans, &c, and on submitting them, asked for lower terms. In the evening, he met the defendant, and offered to prepare the plans for two guineas, in the event of the loan not being authorised, or the work not gone on with. If it was, he was to be the architect, and receive the usual fees and commission. Defendant could not accept the terms till he had communicated with the Colonial Treasurer. That evening, he received a reply by telegram, and he (plaintiff) proceeded with the work. He prepared plans and an estimate, so as to use as much local timber as possible. He prepared them, and handed them to defendant on the following Wednesday. Therp being an increase, a concrete foundation was required, and he arranged to teleyraph the estimate to him. In order that the correspondent of the New Zealand Herald should not get the information, or that it should be known, he (plaiiitifT) arranged to proceed to Auckland, and wire the estimates to Mr Graham at Waiwera. It had been agreed by the Council that the defendant should proceed to Wellington to get the amount placed upon the estiuuU* Ho had an interview with the defendant on April 2, and he was instructed to prepare estimates for buildings in wood, brick, and concrete. He said he should make a special charge upon the three estimates of f per cent., and which was to bededucted trom the usual charge of 5 per cent, upon the buildings, and went on. On April 5 defendant saH he could not proceed to Wellington without showing the Government what would be required. He placed the original plans and estimate in defendant s hands thatday, and he said he wished to see him (plaintiff) in Auckland on particular business before proceeding 1 to Wellington. He met defendant at the Auckland Club at half past seven a m. the day defendant proceeded to Wellington. Mr Mcllhone accompanied him (plaintiff), and in walking to the station he remarked to defendant that there was a special charge for preparing estimates. Defendant replied, pointing to his head, that it was all there. He also arranged that he (plaintiff) should interview the Commissioner of Lauds (Mr D. A. Tole), and see if a brauch of the Lands Office could be opened in the buildings. He rendered an account to the corporation for preparing the estimates, and the council paid him five guineas. It was then he ascertained that the defendant had no authority from the council to prepare the estimates. He had posted letters (produced) making demand upon the council for the fees for the estimates. He had notified defendant that he would then make a claim upon him, as he had then ascertained, that the council had not given authority to the defendant. In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he had done no other work for the Borough Council. He had made only one claim against the council, and had received five guineas. He had received no reply to any correspondence he had sent in. He did correspond with the Hon. J. Ballance in reference to the buildings, but it wa3 not asking for the appointment of architect. He gave the receipt (produced) on September 24, which was given to satisfy all demands for services performed for the council to date. He did not get the copy of the receipt at the same time. The borough solioitor, Mr O'Neil, wanted to give another one, which was tantamount to tho original one, but he insisted upon a true copy being supplied. He did not read the leceipt until he came to Auckland. an<l handed it over to his solicitor. He did not see an announcement in The Waikato Times that plans, etc., were to be prepared at a coat not exceeding £10. He would swear that he had not, but he had seen a report in the Herald. He had no recollection of sending a telegram to Mr Graham, at Waiwera, in which the estimate was £32.">0 for wood, and £o3OQ in aonorete and brick. He lurl now no doubt about it It took him three days to prepare the estimates, and he wanted the modest sum ot £112 10a for it. It was only once in ten years that he bueh a chance in thecountry. (Laughter.) The work was not takea up by him in the hope that he would be appointed architect. It was done conditionally. Mr Graham, agreed at first that he should be the architect. He took it that he (Mr Graham) had power to secure this, lie had not gone about asking tho councillors for their influence in appointing him architect. He knew the editor of The Waikato Times, but did not supply him wjth. particulars of the buildings voluntarily. He did so at the request ot the editor. He did not ask him to do all that he could for him, both in the paper and outside the council. If these gentlemen swore to the contrary he was not prepared to s,a.y they would be telling untruths. On September 6 he rendered an account which had in. it the qualification that he required the three-quarter per cent. u if " he was appointed architect to the buildings. The Government had takeu over the matter ain.ee into their own hands, H.u^h gave evidence in reference to the conversation an the way to the railway station, William A. Graham, d.efen.d.aqt. deposed that he had the estimates prepared by the plaintiff. They were approximate estimates, but he did not authorise any alternate estimates, He stated at the time that he did not incur any personal responsibility in the matter. For the defence Mr Cotter moved for a nonsuit. My Q'Meagher replied, contending thftfc he was not aware of the statement that there was no personal responsibility till it came out by the defendant. His Worship considered that the case failed to show that there was any contract, or that the defendant was personally tesponsible. The plaintiff was nonsuited^ The oostts amounted to £22 U,

Yes ! It is certainly true. Ask any of your friends who have purchased there. Garlick and Cranwell have numerous unasked for and very favourable commendations from country customers on their excellent packing of Furniure, Crockery, and Glass, Sic Ladios and gentlemen about t"> furnish, should remember that Garlick and Cranwell's is thk Cheap Furnishing Whorehouse of Auckland. Furniture to suit an classes ; also Carpets, Floor Cloths and all House Necossarios. If your new house is nearly finished, or, you are no'mg to pet m.irned, visit Garlick and Cranwell, Queen-street and Lome-street Auckland. Intending purchasers can have 4 catalogue sent free