LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 837, 8 June 1910, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SESSIONS. A PETONE BUILDING CLAIM. "DIFFICULT CASE." Claim for payment oil a building contract was made iu the Supremo Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoiit), in the case of Alfred James Skinner, builder, of Petono, versus James M'Guinnoss\ labourer at the Petono Railway Workshops. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. I'. liunny for the defendant. The claim was made upon an agreement between the plaintiff, Skinner, and the defendant, 'M'Guinness, signed on December 1 Inst. Under that agreement, Skinner was to erect for M'Guinness a residence at l'etono lit a contract price of JCUO. Mr. Wilford, in opening the case, said that M'Guinness had paid Skinner JE2II lis. 9d. Extra work amounting to .1)35 had to be paid for in .addition to the <£410, so that, a balance of X2G3 Bs. 3d. was outstanding, Claim lmil been made for this slim, but, as it was found that ..€3O had since been paid to a painter, Skinner would amend his claim to .£233 Bs. 3d. The defence, said Mr. Wilford, was that no certificate had been given by the inspector of works, and that, for that reason, Skinner was not entitled to 1m paid. Another ground of defence was that the work had not been done according to contract. ■ It was further alleged, as part of the defence, that the sum tf .£llO was to be paid for the erection of two buildings—a dwelling and a "bach." There was no mention of tho "bach" in the agreement, remarked Mr. Wilford. . Mr. Bunny: We rely on a partially oral and partially written agreement. Mr. Wilford: Skinner has been paid for the "bach," which ivns put up on a separate section. "In the beginning," said Mr. Wilford, "plaintiff and defendant were chums, and wore constantly together. To illustrate this I might say that the defendant was tlio guest of tho plaintiff for Christmas." No trouble (continued counsel) had arisen' until payment was asked for, but then M'Guinness began to shift a little. It would bo shown that M'Guinness had said to one of his men, "I thought we were done, but I find a receipt on account of 'buildings.' Now I hpve got him." j Skinner, the plaintiff, stated that ho was paid, separately, a sum of £75 for the "bach," an agreement regarding which was made before M'Guinness had completed his arrangements for tho house. Tlio other contract was subsequently agreed upon, and the building of the house proceeded, but no inspector of works was appointed, M'Guinness agreeing to lcavu everything in Skinner's huiids.

Further cvidenco for tho plaintiff was given by Henry Findlay (builder), Frederick Whitley (painter), and William Francis (painter),.

Sir. Bunny pointed out that M'Guinness was u working man, and this. was his first experience of house-building. He desired to tlcet a homo for himself, and, making the acquaintance of Skinner, he raised the sum of .£250 by mortgage on his property, having at tlio time .C2OO in cash. Mr. Bunny urged that tho contract price, .£4lO, included .£75 for the erecting of tho "bach." M'Guinnoss had receipts which showed that ,£320 10s. had been paid.

M'Guinness, tho. defendant, stated in evidence that ho appointed Daniel Fraser as inspector of works, but Skinner said that lie would take no notice of Fraser. From the butset h» had understood lliat tho contract was to include ' the two buildings—tho house and the two-roomed "bach."

Mr. Wilford: And how do you account for tho word "residence" appearing in tho,.agreement?—Witness: "Well, I sup-pose-ht was due to ignorance on my part,"; - . f • For tho defence, evidence was also given by: Daniel Georgo Eraser (land agent), £dwin Arthur Hoskings (striker), Mrs. Florence Hoskings, Charles Thomas. Fisher (freezer), Francis Cornelius Cooper (builder), and Charles Treaton Price (builder). His Honour reserved his decision, remarking that the case was a difficult one, ana, iri deciding it, he might have to be guided by the point as to which sido had to fulfil the onus of proving their case.