Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BUILDING CONTRACT.

APPELLANTS NONSUITED. The relations betweer builders, architects, and the person for whom a certain house was built were the subject of a judgment by Mr. Justice Cooper today in the Supreme Court. The case was one of appeal from the judgment, of Dr. M 'Arthur, S.M., Wellington. The appellants were Alexander and John Bell ,• the respondent, G. H. Sample. The appellants brougnt an action in the Magistrate's , Court against the respondent, claiming to recover the sum of £197 10s Bd, the balance alleged to be due by the respondent for work' done in connection with a contract for the building of a house at Kilbirnie. The magistrate held that the work had not been completed ; in particular he held that the house had been erected on the wrong site. He, therefore, gave judgment for the defendant, the present respondent. The main ground of appeal was that the building was erected in accordance with the plans and specifications, and duly completed in accordance therewith. It was submitted that the owner j and inspector verbally agreed that the i building was duly completed. The ! peculiar aspect of the case was that the actual agreement, which was kept apart from the specifications, was lost during the erection of the building. Although the respondent, in whose possession the paper had been, had tho matter investigated by a fletective, no trace of the dgreem-ent could oe discovered. The building inspector refused tv pass the building as complete. An independent builder, with the consent ot the parties, investigated the building and dlso found it to be in several lebpects incomplete. After fully considering the case, his Honour held that the appel- j lants ought to have bean nonsuited in the first case. He, therefore, varied the magistrate's judgment by directing that a nonsuit should be entered in lieu of judgment foi the defendant. The matter of costs was deferred. Mr. H. Johnston appeared for the appellants; Mr. 4.. Blair for the respondents.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19100519.2.13

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 117, 19 May 1910, Page 2

Word Count
328

BUILDING CONTRACT. Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 117, 19 May 1910, Page 2

BUILDING CONTRACT. Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 117, 19 May 1910, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert