UNUSED PLANS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 8, 9 July 1931, Page 11

UNUSED PLANS

A PARKING STATION,

CLAIM FOR FEES... FAILS

"Common prudence suggests that where tho making of: a claim arid, the bringing of an action of this sort have I en delayed until after the death of tho ono person who could give material evidence for tho defence," the-.- claim should be examined with - some care," said Mr. E. Pago, S.M., at the Magistrate 's Court to-day, when he gave judgment against Herbert H. Jones, who claimed from H. Reynolds and Co. tho sum of &2pS 10s, alleged to bo due for architect's fees in connection with a proposed parking station for curs iv Wakefield, street. ( . Thq Magistrate said he considered the evidence of the plaintiff unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Tho evidence showed-that early in the year 1929 . tlie. plaintiff, got into touch with oho Painter, a bankrupt tar merchant, who had,an idea of .forming a company to'acquire a building to be used and.run us a parking,station for' motor-cars. About May, 1929, Painter, saw -a piece of. land belonging, to . the defendants in Wakefield street, and. he and the plaintiff interviewed Mr. 13. Reynolds, managing director of the defendant company, with a view to inducing the defendants .;. to. construct the necessary building and to grant a lease of it to tho companywhich Paintor contemplated endeavouring'to form. SCHEME DROPPED. . The ease for the plaintiff, said Mr. Page, was that at the interviews Mr. E, Reynolds instructed tho plaintiff to prepare plans for the typo of building that Painter desired, ami that.he, Mr. Reynolds, agreed to pay for tho preparation of those plans. Some, plans appeared tv have boon .submitted to Mr. Reynolds, but nothing camo of the proposal, and* the plaintiff knew in August, 1929,' that Reynolds had no intention of going on with the scheme that Painter and Jones wero urging upon him. Sixteen ■ months later, iv December, 1930, Mr. Reynolds was ~-accidentally killed while on a visit to Christchurch. During the whole of that period no claim of any sort had boon put forward by tho plaintiff for the foes for which ho now sued/'.and'no account had been rendered to ; Mr. Reynolds or the defendants. "Tho plaintiff' has a few plans, which, ho says, represent the work for which this large claim is now made," said Mr. Page. "On only one of these plans (and its duplicate) does tho name Reynolds appear; ami it is obvious from an examination that the word 'Reynolds' has been written on tho plau-at some stage after .the plan had been prepared.' The other plans contained no name of tho person-for whom thoy. have boeu prepared.'": ENGINEER'S ACCOUNT. - Tho plaintiff also • fn'odueed au account dated 28th February, 1931, professing to. bo debitod against him by a structural cngineor, "for £176 ss. The plaintiff stated that at the time of drawing tho plans and making an estimate of their cost, ho consulted the engineer aud. incurred-tho bill. "No account from such engineer had been sent to, the plaintiff,. and ■ no, demand' made for such consulting work during this intervening" period of 18 months," continued . the, -Magistrate. "The account that has been produced appears to have been sent iv conscquonco of a conversation,. botwe.cn the plaintiff and such engineer. "Upon a careful .consideration of-the whole case I am of opinion that the evidence called for tho plaintiff fails substantially short of establishing his claim, and the action must therefore fail," concluded Mr. Page. At the hearing of the case Mr. D. Perry appeared for. the-plaintiff: and' Messrs. A. B. Buxton,and'D. Blundell for tlie defendant. - ■'"