Building Consultant’s Claim Against Spiritualist Society

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28766, 11 December 1958, Page 9

Building Consultant’s Claim Against Spiritualist Society

The Christian Spiritualist Society “expected to pay and wanted to pay” for sketch plans of a projected new assembly hall prepared for it in 1955 and 1956 by Angus Hugh McMaster, a building consultant, but only as part of a completed job, said Oliver Gladstone . Moody, a trustee of the society, during the hearing of a civil claim before Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. McMaster sought to recover from the society £42 17s 3d as the cost of preparing a set of draft plans for the projected building. The society wanted McMaster to “do the job,” but he had “fallen down on it,” Moody said. McMaster was to have picked up a set of plans lodged with the City Council,, but rejected, and produce “an alternative proposition.” “We waited for months to near from him—waited patiently—but we did not hear from him. He just disappeared,” Moody said After hearing evidence at length, the Magistrate allowed McMaster £2O on his claim, with Court costs and witnesses’ expenses. Mr P. F. Feenstra appeared for McMaster, and Mr E. I. White for the Christian Spiritualist Society. Negotiations Outlined Outlining his negotiations with Moody. McMaster said he was approached in December, 1955. and asked to design a new twostoreyed assembly hall for the Christian Spiritualist Society on its property at 272 Madras street next to the Y.W.C.A. “I was asked to cram into the building as many office suites as possible to give the society an income,” said McMaster. When he submitted the plans to the City Council he was told that the Madras street site was zoned residential, and that ’ a building with a commercial aspect would not be allowed, said McMaster. The plans were scrapped, and It was decided that they redesign a different building altogether. “Mr Moody intimated ne was not going to be beaten over this,’’ said McMaster. “He said we were entirely surrounded by commercial buildings. He said: ‘We will alter our tactics, redesign the building to an assembly hall, eliminate the office suites, and build, or show tn our design meeting rooms, club rooms, and social rooms.’ ” He then drew up sketch plans of an entirely different singlestoreyed building, said McMaster. “Mr Moody took these plans, and he was to make his own personal approach to some friends—someone he knew on the City Council, or the town planning,’’ McMaster said. Moody subsequently had told him in a telephone conversation that the council’s reply was still not favourable.

Lodging of Appeal “Mr Moody promised to return the plans to me so that I could put them into a more presentable style, in effect, to produce them in ink, and said that he intended to lodge an appeal to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board on the basis that the property was completely surrounded by commercial aspect,” McMaster said.

“The plans were not returned to me,” said McMaster. “Some two months later, I learnt that a church assembly hall was being built”

McMaster said he told Moody he was “not very pleased* * with the principle of the way things had been done, and that he should have been told negotiations with him had been severed. He had received no money for the work he had done, although he accepted full responsibility for the first set of plans not being acceptable, McMaster said. Cross-examined by Mr White about his allegation that Moody was “going behind the scenes,” McMaster said that Moody told him: “You give ther plan to me. There’s a lot of commercial aspect round the site, and I'll approach the council.” Mr White: You anticipated this second lot of plans would be thrown out, yet you embarked on them?

McMaster: I was employed to do it.

“A most unusual assignment,” commented Mr White. Defendant’s Evidence

The society had approached McMaster for expert guidance in building a new assembly, hall, said Moody. It was agreed that McMaster’s fees would be 2J per cent, of the contract price for the building, when that was settled. When the first plan was rejected, it was McMaster who had suggested they seek acceptance of a modified plan. Moody said he personally submitted this second plan, with a covering letter, to the City Council on July 24, 1956. He personally approached Mr George Manning and Mr J. Mathison, M.P., hoping the society [would have their “co-operation and awistance” when the plan

came before the City Council committee.

On August 7, he received a letter from Mr Somers, the City Engineer, saying that the plan was “impossible.” He denied instructing McMaster to produce that second plan for an appeal to be lodged on it. The second plan was useless to the society, being based on a plan that had already been rejected. Moody said that after the rejection of the second plan, McMaster had left his office on the distinct understanding that he was to pick up the plan from the council and make a further approach. But McMaster had just disappeared. To Mr Feenstra, Moody admitted he had made no effort to get in touch with McMaster. “It would have been simple to ring him?” suggested Mr Feenstra. “No, not when you ring Mr McMaster. It’s not simple,” replied Moody. Question at Issue The real question at issue was whether the second plan was prepared on the instructions of the society, and whether or not McMaster was entitled to be paid for it, said the Magistrate. “If Moody’s evidence is accepted, that McMaster was well aware of . the council’s zoning requirements, it would have been foolish for McMaster to have gone ahead with the second plan on the same site basis,” the Magistrate said. “But Moody sent the plan in himself with a covering letter, a letter which indicated he knew of the zoning requirements.” If McMaster rendered services and if through no fault of his own was prevented from completing the contract, he was entitled to be paid, said the Magistrate. Holding that the second plan was prepared and submitted on Moody’s instructions, the Magistrate allowed McMaster £2O on his claim.