BRICKS FOR CONVENT
. BISHOP'S APPEAL DISMISSED. ! CONTRACT NOT ESTABLISHED. COSTS ACCORDING TO SCALE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Court of Appeal this afternoon dismissed the appeal by James M. Lis- , ton, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auck- ! land, from the judgment of Mr. Justice ' j Herdman, delivered in Auckland in ■■August, in an action brought by appel- • lant against H. R. Jenkins, A. B. Craw- ,. ford and W. H. Waterhouse, all of r I Auckland, formerly trading the Drury Brick and Tile Company. ! Litigation arose out 'of the supply of ! 125,000 facing bricks in connection with the erection of a convent at Howick. , After the report of the earlier proceedings was sent to the "Star" yester- > day counsel for Bishop Liston moved for s leave extending the time for finding , security for appeal. This was opposed by counsel for the respondents, who contended that the Court could not now retrospectively cure i an abandonment of the appellant's right [ of appeal, which was presumed to have taken place by failure to find security within the prescribed period. 1 The Court reserved decision on the : point. t Dealing with the appeal on its merits , counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence established a contract be- ; tween the "respondents as suppliers of • Drury bricks and the architect, who was 1 the agent of the appellant. As the bricks 1 produced by the respondents were new ! on the market and had not been pre- : viously tried, the architect required some guarantee that they would be suitable • for the requirements. The respondents, ■ in consideration of a provision in the • specifications that their bricks were to be used, guaranteed their quality and ■ even provided the architect with sample bricks. Although the guarantee was not in ! writing, counsel contended that a verbal undertaking by the respondents was sufficient to establish their liability in ' damages for the rapid deterioration of the bricks. The Court delivered judgment without calling upon counsel for the respondents. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, stated that counsel for the appel- ' lant had rightly admitted that he could succeed only if he could show that there was a contract between the appellant and the respondents whereby the respondents guaranteed the quality of their bricks. The only evidence of such contract was the evidence of a conversation between the respondents and the appellant's architect, in which one of the respondents stated that he "guaranteed that the bricks would be successful for the purpose." However, his Honor was of opinion that the respondents did no more than make representations about the quality of bricks and did not intend to contract with the appellant. In dismissing the appeal the Court allowed costs according to scale.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19320930.2.16
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 232, 30 September 1932, Page 3
Word Count
449BRICKS FOR CONVENT Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 232, 30 September 1932, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.