SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 222, 12 June 1908, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL 1 SITTINGS. 'Architect v. gas company. _; CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL SERvices. ;^u.. SATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT. } j - ' 4'. The Civil Sittings of the .Supreme Cpttrtr- •' wers resumed yosterday morning,..-when.;,the 4 ease between WiUiam . Turnbull •, (Thomas ' ■ -Tunibull and Co.) and-the Wellington-'Gas • < Company—a claim for ■■■£575 moneys . alleged ■■■•' to'be duefor professional services—was com--Imenced before Mr. Justice Chapman, anil, a ■ jury-'of twelve, of whom' Mr. T. -Menelaus 4 was iho foreman ' c-' "'' Mr. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr- John- ■ --ston) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, «md * ■a Mi- B. Brown for the defendant company. •'' • •••. . Tho statement, of claim set forth that, the 1 ■ i defendant company in May, .1907., .requested - plaintiff" to "prepare a scheme and. sketch plan , for certain proposed >extensions to.'its ipremises at .Courtenay Place. Solieme tahd • sketch plans were submitted, to tho direc- -■ tors of the defendant company, ..but it < w,as decided not-to'proceed witlr the extensions. ..v.Tho reasonable ■remuneration for • tlioi ttofk . was tho sum of £75 'which tho defendant >"<■■ company had refused to.; pay;.' In August, Vi 1907; the defendant;company consultedAthgj . ,vplamtiff>a^.toiwhethcr ; » ■> . could bo enlarged ;by putting' ori additional story "—After--making-iho..necessary inquiries, plaintiff ' jroported th.it the proposed work could be': done, i On -2, • the defendant company handed to plain- • tiff a rough "the and additions required to be done, and plain- - tiff was instructed to prepare the necessary v -plans and specifications, for,n.ew^workshops, new stores, and the remodelling "of the/com- ' pany's offices. The' plaintiff performed '_' the. ! : work,'and 1 -after'thfr' plans and.specifications : had >bcen ■ ■ modified ; : in r .certain ■ ... directions" ■ /■■".■ drafted complete for'/the'* ;j •. posed work, the estimated cost ofctfhiclt'was-- ' £20,000. Tho defendant. company-ihadude-cided ■■ not. to proceed .;with..ihe ; :.altera,tioiiß and additions,,and had;'also;"refused" ' . ■' the '.cost' of- the preparation of -the :; plans. > s ; The ordinary arid reasonable.--.remuneration" V : for .this particular work was at the rate of ■ 21 per cent, on -the sum of i £20,000, viz., £500. AVhorefore' plainfciff claimed.Viroinsde- . fendant: company/in all, £575.•. The statementof.defeto"wt'f6rtli-fl»?„the' ' •■ . i scheme and sketch plans were to be t 'oM6sted on approval. As the; company.'had declined ; to approvo of them, it .was not indebted to >,; \ : plaintiff. • -Defendant admitted that,'a roii^li- 1 'i. ■ sketch indicating the nature of ..'the proposed. ' ■■'.■■■ alterations was handed to- plaintiff with fa view-to his preparing a schemo or sketch : plans for submission to tho directors for. ; approval. Plamtiff was informed 'that the; ' ■ company was prepared to spend £8000. j j . Upon ascertaining that the proposed-w;orlcs is' designed by the ; plaintiff nrould 'probably cost-£20,000, the directors informed plaihtiff. that tho company would 'not procecd.with was done snbfect'td the directors' ,: appr6yirig' i-. of the same. -The company nover requested. - ■ plaintift to draft, -complete specifications'" . ready for tenders ,to'"'bo called for'any.vworks- - -. ,to exceed m: cost the v sum' of £10,000, and : .. plaintiff , well knew : that' the; company.twoujd not approve of .any; plans involving the eipendituro of £20,000. . ..; ... \i , :: i Mr. Skerrett," in opening the case.-for. the ''.plaintiff,", remarked .th'ait'■,the fees . claimed were accprdingto a regular, scale fromswhich did; not- depart except under :sp'ecial • circumstances. There . stood, be nodi sputa' as; to,. th e '.quantum' of ii> the 1 ■ ii i j., *1 Mr. Brown ft-That is. the. whole dispute. «;^i9 i, Company holds,,that pjaiiitiff' is.not,legally; entitled to be piid for the' *vgrk done.. It'has,ihowever, made an offer ...which has;not;'been accepted- ■ -.■)a ( >- -i . . Plaintiff) ,mv evidence;.'. stated, runder' ex-, i • aminatjon :by • Mr. Skerrett,' that, 'in" ' t 1907, he was seenby'Mr. Nathan-(chairman of .-the -Company) and .tary) • with/ theM-firtt' .'r'Schenie,which involved extensions • ; fronting-r Courtenay Place and'providing: for - shops-'oii the ground • floor with' stCres ; aind ;'S>o'3tshotis .. above. Tlie defendant company, on June ;4, . -. 1907, wrote tovhinr stating, that it-had aban- 1 'doned the scheme, and would 'forward 'tf-' . cheque for the-amount^"of his fe'es'if lie would ';; ■■. \ submit his ficcount. As " the cost "--of the- • : -i scheme would have.heori £15,000, plaintiff was .entitled'.to'-'£7s 'for'the-^ork'"wliicK-*li6 hid ' r > performed. In August of tho same year the defntdanb. j)jjuntiff-- to ascsirtain whetner''an;.additional," story could be added jtbytKe'; eating' ; Hnildin(»','.y^After haVinn v/aited'iipon'i'thejCity 'Engiriger plaintiff informed the, company . work could, be: :carn«r_out;rprov-ided; that the .walls'i'bf.'.the,existing■.-bhildin'g'',':;' wei-e ,;v .. strengthened. plaintiff was' fn- ■■; ■>•■.- ; structed-.fo. prepare-'plajis, and i-specificatioiis,. ; in conection with.the second .scheme;- which involved tho ercctibn';6f ne_w workshops, new" ■ stores, arid the're-modellirig' of the company's'*' offices. ■- The plans;-were/duly .'approved. | ■Mr.. Skerrett:, Did the first scheme co'n- . tain- : provision .for. ! the^'addition' ,! of an/ij.xtra story . to .the ;'.„priserit --building?—' Witness - :.■;.-. No. ;■ e -,\ras the work done in connection,with the { , -. nrst-.'schbme-vany.-assistance • nection with the second scheme V _ You submitted your account in due course. What reply did you-receive?— I That the comi. .. pany did not accept any liability with respect , to the charges/mado.'. :■ •. . ■ "thoro-'evcr" any"suggcsnb'n 't'o the v., - effect that Jh.e..Company.;:wjis . not prepared , to spend'more' than £8000?— No. . .'.; t .Plaintiff was then cross-examined byvi oounsel for the company. .. | Mr. Brown; Is not a common-practice'for architects.; to proparp. plans ;on .'approval 5"- 1 - ■ i" t c! ' . ••5 1 Jrjiotj the:Company i .endearoiir->:to -meet yau .fairly..an this matter?—lf .thei-ihad, lit ,- :j ; would.;have been' all';rjghtV-'-^i : ----'-- i?;:J --| , But . the- company would.„not have' 'resist" ■--'■" t• t-• e ' ■ ainl ' lac ' Considered-'-the- amouh't'' which you dosired reasonable 5 I loath' ..': -. . torcome,this;far.: ~^ly'rep'ufation'is' affecte'd'* But;.was not the offers?—lt-is've?y hard 1 to say it-—. ".You know £124 was not suffi?' cient for: the work. . i So you went to see Mr. Nathan (chajrwhen I :receiv'ed a letter from Mr. Skerrett .1 went along "to' Mr. Nathait's oflice. He said: " I wonder tliat you hayo got the cheek to- come'into my' office." i I thought that--'-was--very • hard after I. had: . done tho work, and had , 'gone, .along 'to sco-if the matter could be 'arranged. So' 1 took no notice of tho remark, and shook .- hands with him. ■ ■ ! •' '®s'osiibv7ffo'counself: -.J)on f t yon thijik that the best' thing; would,,Jeuifor. 'Mr>'"\\ r ;' Ferguson and, plaintiff -id spend , .ten . minutes . iiext- room with' r. "viow'' 'of'"'seeing, whether s a. settlement, could -.lHvmrivcd -'at. ' -Mr. Brown:-I..havetried to'get-the matter •.. arranged,'v.bat that plaihtiff • •won't .SddSjplt.iebs ;",ofA lji#"> claim. ; ■•.■.■-:-■•■ '■ ■•■■"■--■ ( . Ilis Honour rl 'Smi of opinion that' ; thife 'is a case which might C(isily, he. sottledt i v .. Mr.; Skerrett: It ought to have :Mr.: Brb>vn:. We offered £200, wanted us to give ' ' • ■ ; Mr..• Skerrett:'. Brown ought'"not' ,to(i mention anyth'ing "about-the amount.. He . - expects us to'.do all' tho giving.;. . ;.... ' • ■'•••.. Mh Brown': We'have to do all the'Givin'c." (Laughter.) : ; ■ Mr. Skerrett: ;.I.'think that plaintiff iand Mr. Ferjruson. should, discus's the mat'ter" for ■/'■'■' fl few minutes,' _. ■' ; Plaintiff: I. waß always willing to- tiry and get a settlement. I can'get on with Mr. Ferguson,- but not with Mr. -Nathan, and . I don't.knpw.-.why thai.is. , w;v-'. 1 ■'"The Court adjourned for a quarter of an; hour."-• ' " ~.'.• " • Mr. Skcrrett...then.intimated that the par?-r ties wcro very grateful to his Honour for his timoly suggestion. The matter had been • . settled to -the .satisfaction .of,, both/ sidds. Woiild his* Honour ; now : strike .'.the case"'oii t of't-hV list? -■-■-'-• '■ N - -•' His Honour: Very well. .1 am. glad that a settlement, has been brought'about. The pni-ties have shpwn good < sense in settling tho caso., ' . . . The, Court then .adjourned until -10.30 this morcinf • r