SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 295, 20 December 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20.

[Before His Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a Common Jury.]

His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock. Gold v. Wokioian. —St. George s Church, Shortland. —This was an action brought by Andrew Gold, contractor, against Rothe erection of this building, to bert Workman and other, trustees for recover damages for a breach of a building contract. The sum claimed to be received was £2500, which was made up of the remainder of the money due upon the contract, the value of some 80,000 feet of timber; and a claim of £500 for special damage occasioned to the plaintiff's credit, trade, and business, in consequence of the non - performance of the contract by the defendant.^ Mr. Hesketh was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker, with him Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Weston, appeared for the defendants. — The evidence was exceedingly voluminous, and the objections taken to the form and language of the contract were various and ingenious. The facts of the case will be most succinctly obtained from the statement of the learned, counsel on either side, and the issues left before the jury to determine. The declaration set out that on or about the 19th of October, 1869, the defendants entered iuto a contract with the plaintiff in consideration of £2900, to be paid to the plaintiff at certain rates and times, for the erection of a building in Shortland, to be known as St. George's Church, Shortland. The plaintiff declared that he had carried out the work according to the plai s and specifications annexed to the contract deed : It was provided by the conditions of the contract that the sum of £2,900 should be paid to the plaintiff at the rate of 80 per cent, on the value of the work actually done. The plaintiff on the 17th of March last became entitled to a certain sum of £200, which was certified by the architects (Messrs. Rumsey and Farrow) as due to the builder under the above arrangement. It appeared, however, that the defendants relied upon subscriptions to meet the demand, and it was discovered that they had no funds available for the purposes of the contract. The sum of £1216 ss. remained duo upon the contract. The value of 30,000 feet of timber, estimated at £800, £500 for labor, and other materials, all which formed the particulars of the claim. The defence put in was a general denial of all material allegations contained in the declaration.—The plaintiff further gave notice that he would offer evidence of special damage. The following were the issues left to the juryt—l. Wasitagrecd between the contracting parties to erect the building for the sum mentioned ? (2.) Was it provided in the conditions that the rate and time of payment should be as in the declaration set out ? (3.) Did the plaintiff perform the woik, or so much of the work as that he became entitled to receive from tho defendant £200? (4.) Had the said amount been paid to the plaintiff? £ (5.) Was tho plaintiff ready and Billing" to carry out and complete the work ? (6.) Had the defendants, without sufficient reasons, discharged the plaintiff. (7.) Arc they indebted to him in the several amounts stated in tho declaration, or any of them ? (8 ) What sum, if any, is the plain tiff entitled to recover ?—Mr. Farrow, an architect, in partnership with Mr. Rumsey, examined by Mr. Hesketh, deposed to the circumstances under which the contract was signed. He identified the plan 3 and specifications. The work he said was done entirely to his satisfaction. Ho had signed four certificate? for the plaintiff previously to the one in March. The amount of these certificates was in the aggregate £900. In March, when ho gave the certificate for £200, there was more than that due to the plaintiff, but the witness had received a letter from the lion, secretary to the effect that there were no funds to meet any further eertifioates. Received a letter from Gold to the effect that as he was not getting any money, he would not proceed further with tho work. On the 11th of February, there was on the ground 117,000 feet of timber, a large quantity of iron-work, prepared timber, blocks, shingles, and excavations ; at £1 per cent., £1170 ; 49,329 feet of timber, at 10s. per thousand, £246 10s.; 27,200 feet fixed at Bs. ; blocks and excavations, £109 ; 1400 lbs. of iron-work, at 6d. ; making a total of £1672 Gs. On account of this sum the plaintiff received £900 after deduction of timber charged to plaintiff, there is £347 due to Mr. Gold. The builders' profit on the whole contract for such a work as that should have been about £600, making together £947- —The witness was cross-ex-amined at great length as to the number of names to the respective conditions of contract, for some of the committee appeared to have objected to give the agreement, and did not. The question raised was whether an erasure of names from a contract deed, after signed did not vitiate the deed, showing as it did a greater responsibility on those remaining than they had contracted to bear. There was also a very long cross-examination having for its object to show that the plaintiff was not as alleged in the declaration, discharged from the work, but that he had discharged himself, and produced a number of receipts of payments made to Gold.

[Left sitting.)