MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1215, 25 August 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SYNAGOGUE ALTERATIONS. AECHITECT'S CLAIM. Judgment was given by pr-,, M ' A ,}3 u , r ' S M., in tho case of Chatfield (Mr. Treadwell) v. Mandel (Jlr. Levi). The claim was for JC7S Bs. fid. for professional services. The plaintiff was an architect, and the defendant the president of the Hebrew Congregation in Wellington. The account extended from 1887 to the present year, but tho defendant did not seek protection under the Statute of limitations. Tho only matters in dispute were: In 1903, proposed additions, .£1691-lit -2i per cent., equalling , - £ii : 75., and ou January 24, 1911, for alterations and additions to'the synagogue, =C 670 15s. 6d., at 5 per cent'., equalling .£33 11s. In reference to tho first item, it seemed (hat it. had been proposed to make certain additions. Plans were drawn'by the plaintiff on the understanding (s> tho defendant alleged) that t!»s limit of cost was not to exceed JCI2OO. When tenders wero called the lowest was XIC9I, so the work was not proceeded with. Eegarding tho second item, tho work was proceeded with under a totally new set of plans, and was supervised by the plaintiff who now claimed the usual rate of 5 per cent on .£670 15s. 6d. The defendant stated that it was a mutual understanding between the plaintiff and him that tho plaintiff-was-only to charge at the Tato of 21 per cent on the second item and therefore the defendant mado an offer of .£SB. This was refused. "There arises in this case," said his Worship, "the right of an architect to his fees on the work of making plans, etc., when tho work has not been proceeded with owing to the fact that the tenders exceeded the amount stipulated for between tho plainilj and the defendant. ... In my opinion the plaintiff would not. be entitled to the jCt'2 75., but in 1909 he received a sum of .£SO which must have included some part of the JE42 75., and further the defendant is only claiming a deduction of 2J per centon tho .£G7O 15s. 6d., or, in figures, a deduction of .£l6 15s. Gd. This I consider is the view of the case I should take. Judgment is for tho plaintiff for JCS3 135., with costs."

BLANDFOED AND FERBIES CO. THE FINDING. Dr. M'Arthur delivered judgment .yesterday in the case in which V. V. Blandford, "insurance clerk, claimed .£2B 15s. as special damages and ,£l5O for shock and damages to health, from the Wellington Harbour Ferries, Ltd. On July 15 Blandford was travelling on the ferry steamer Admiral, nnd, when near the' Day's Bay wharf, fell overboard, which accident, he alleged, was duo to defendants' servants negligently leaving the ship's railing open. To his Worsliip's mind the whole question of fact to be decided was the time at which the opening was mnde for putting out the gangway. If tho opening had been left from liona Bay to Day's Bay that would have been evidence of great, negligence on the part of !ho defendants' servants. In his opinion, the opening was exposed too scon, and should not havt been exposed until tlio steamer was secured to the pier. He could find no evidence of contributor}- negligence on the part of the plaintiff. He considered Blandford's claim for damages excessive. As special damages Blandford was entitled to .£lB 35., and on account of stock aad damages to hsalth he allowed

.£3O. Judgment, therefore, was for plainHli for JCIS !h. ami costs. - ' OTHER CIVIL CASES. Miller and M'Williams, builders, Killiirnic. claimed to recover from Alfred and Airs. CarMin .EGO .Vs. Id. as extras in respect of the erection i>l , a house for deI'cmliints at Kilbirnie. The defendants counter claimed for ,€72 10s. Gd., mc*t of which, it was said, had been incurred in alterations lo windows which were not in accordance with plans. Mr. Fitzgibbon represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Arnold the defendants. The case will bo proceeded with to-day. Charles Scarl proceeded against Leonard Charles Coker, hairdresser, Lyall Bay. for possession of Roods alleged to havo been detained by defendant, or .£4O, as tho value of the goods, and ,£5 as damages. Mr. A. Fair appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. 11. llindmarsh for the defendant. The case was partly heard and then adjourned till August 31 J. V. Dyke, horse-dealer, Wellington, obtained judgment against Albert James., poultry farmer, Levin, for £2 95., balance, of account for green feed for horses. Air. H. G. Horsley represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Hogbcu tho defendant. "BY DEFAULT." Tn the following cases judgment was for the plaintiff by default:—Commercial Agency (assignee), Biiig, Harris and Co., Ltd. (assignor), v. Win. Emmeiton, .£2O Us., costs £2 Us.; Daniel O'Connor v. Geo. Rowe, M Is. 10d., costs c£l 3s. Cd.j J. J. Curtis and Co., Ltd., v. W. G. B. Rowe, .£!) Os. 3d., costs £\ 3s. Cd.; Prouse Lumber Limited v. J. W. Horrock and Co., £2 17s. lid., costs 155.; Bannatyne and Hunter v. Mrs. Spens Black, J;3 155., costs 11s.; Biug, Harris, and Co., Ltd., v. Mrs. C. Patterson and Robert Patterson, .fill 15s. Id., costs ,£1 13s. Gd.; Matthew Muir (administrator in the estate of J. G. Muir) v. L. H. Wilson, £2b os. 2d., costs ,£2 Us. j Arthur T. Clark v. Clias. F. Priest, .CI 10s., costs os.; Ross and Glendiuing, Ltd., r. Albert Tucker, £6 Bs. 3d., costs £1 as: Cd.; ,1. V. Dyke v. G. Morris, ,£1 35., costs 55.; E. J. Hyams, Ltd., v. Frank Stewart, dC2B 195., costs £2 Ins.; Atlas Biscuit and Confectionery Company v. Archibald T. Goodman, £2 13s. Gd., costs 10s.; Matthew Muir (estate of J. G. Muir) v. Alexander G. Johnston, .£3, costs 55.; same v. John Lane, .£l, costs 55.; same v. 11. F. Skey, £7 19s. (id., costs 11s.; same v. Esmond Williams, .£4, costs 7s.

ON "JUDGMENT." Thos. Ecid Inch was ordered to pay £1 9s. 6d. to John Graysori on or before September 7, in default three days' imprisonment. POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.JL) One first offending inebriate was fined os. . ' Henry Pankhurst, who had been declared a. habitual drunkard, appeared on Temand. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and a prohibition order was issued aijainst him.