THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11692, 25 September 1902, Page 4

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPREME CODRT.-CIVIL STTriSGS (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) FE.VSXa V. GIILIES. Action to recover £l6O 13s lOd, balance due for goods and material supplied and for work and labor done in connection with the Law Courts at Dunedin. Mr Solomon for plaintiff, Robert Fraser; Mr Sim for defendant, Alexander Gillies. The plaintiff’s statement, of claim was as above stated, plus the particulars. Defendant put in an amended statement to this effect: He said that he contracted to do all the painting and glazing, and it was -verbally agreed .that Fraser should supply and complete lor £172" all the lead lights required. It was at the same time agreed that Gillies should import for Fraser all the glass required at the price of 7d per foot for cathedra! glass and at landed cost for muffled ruby glass. Gillies supplied and completed the lead lights, and supplied the glass and other materials and did tho work, and Fraser was indebted to him in the sum of £72 17s B£d, which rum Gillies claimed to set off against any sum owing to Fraser. Defendant had paid to or on account of the plaintiff several sums aihounting to £B9 11s 7d. Plaintiff was indebted to the defendant the sum of £l2 15s 4d for other goods supplied. -> Mr Solomon said that obviously one or the other of these tradesmen had. made a mistake. Tho case Vas unique’ in one spnse, for the dispute was in reference to the work on the law Courts, and the work was before the eyes of His Honor as he sat.

His Honor: Without going outside? Mr Solomon: Yes. your, Honor. The ■work is the fanlight behind you and the cupola work overhead. The contract for the building was let to Mr Shaw. So far as he (Mr Solomon) could ascertain, the contract was for a lump sum for the whole building. Mr Gillies took a sub-contract from Mr Shaw for the painting and glazing work. That contract, so far as learned counsel could gather, was also for a fixed price. As Mr Gil’ies did not have facilities for doing lead-light work, he engaged Mr Fraser to do it, and the question of what the arrangement between them was formed the subject of this action. The Government architect stipnlated that some of the work should be of the value, of 7s per square foot, and other work 4s per foot, and the sum allowed for the contract was £349. Mr Prater said that he arranged with Mr Gillies to do the work and he paid 6s for the 7s work and 3s for the 4s. Mr Gillies, on the other hand, asserted that Mr Fraser agreed to do the work at the lump ram of £172. According to Mr Fraser’s understanding. of the contract, the price came to £3? O. One or the other had. of course, made a mistake. He (Mr Solomon) would be sorry to suggest that it was a wilful mi-take. The Turtles were on the of terms. Mr G'llics said that he felt ob’iged to give the Job to Mr Pra c er- instead of calling for tenders, became Mr Fraser had put so mnch work in his way. That fact had an important bearing .on the because if Mr Gillies wished to do Mr Fra-er a good turn if was peculiar to expect him to do for £l7O work ■"hich the Government architect valued at £350. Further, Mr Gillies said that Mr Fraser agreed to pay him for the glass much more than the ordinary value.

His Honor: Was there no writing? Mr Solomon : No writing whatever; that is the difScultv. Learned counsel wont on to give reasons for the assertion that the probabilities were immensely in Mr Fraser’s favor when considering whi-h of the two made a mistake For one thing, at the time the arrangement-was made it was impossible to arrive at anything more than an approximation as to ■ how many feet of glass would be required. As to the dome, no details were available at the tim«—there was only the hole, and nothing to indicate the shape of the'work. Learned counsel proceeded to give other reasons for preferring Mr Fraser’s account of the contrict. and then.went on to call evidence. ' Robert Fraser, the plaintiff, was subjected to a lengthy examination, and his cro-s-exsmmation lasted til] 3 p.ia. Frank W. P"tre, architect, was the next witness. He : said that he hsd m<-a-rored the -deadlight work 'in the Wilding, a-d found fW't of fanlight work and KMJft of cupola «work Mr Fr-wer recognisr-d. as a roost experienced mm in the trade, : If he vtook, from witness, a eontmet for sp much p-r foot, those w-re the jn-asurejnents on which he would be cntiiled to be mid.-.

The case was proceeding when- we went to press. .