DISTRICT COURT. This Day. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford and a Jury of four.)

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 511, 16 May 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT. This Day. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford and a Jury of four.)

T. K. MACDONALD & CO. V. O. 11. BBBRB. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant the sum of 4&X) as damages for alleged negligence in preparing certain plans, in consequence of which plaintiffs were put to considerable loss. The following gentlemen were sworn in as tho jury ;— Messrs. Jenness (foreman), North, Besley, and Kellow. Mrl Ollivier appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Bell for the defendant. It appeared that the facts, which were explained in these columns some time ago, were as follows : —The plaintifls bought a portion of land at the rear of St. John's Church, known as Hunter's acres, and employed defendant to cut up the land into sections, sand lay off certain roads and streets through it. Defendant cut up the land and prepared certain plans and specifications. A contract was then let to Mr. Jay to make the roads, but by the time he had finished. It was foutfu that the work had cost several hundred of pounds more than defendant had ostimated., Plaintiffs' declined to pay tbe extra money, and the matter was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators decided against the plaintiff*, and awarded the contractor the sum of £380. Plaintiffj now sued defendant with the object of recovering £200 from him on account of his neglect t6 prepare proper plans, and specifications. John 'Jay, contractor, gave evidence to the effect that the plans and specifications furnished to him were faulty, and that the work could not haye been done properly if they were closely adhered to. f6r instance, it was absolutely necessary that a retaining walls should bo erected, but there was no provision made for any such thing. Therefore that was an extra oxpense. John R. Davies, engineer, gave evidence to the effect that in his opinion a retaining wall should have beon provided for. The absence of such provision in the plans indicated a want of care on the part of the engineer, but otliorwise the work was done properly. N. Marchaut, engineer, stated that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some such structure as a retaining wall built. • Tv K. Maddonatd was examined >at some length, and hfc evidence was to the effect thnt the facts of the case were as stated in our opening paragraph. .. The case was proceeding when wo went to presß^ , .