CONVENT CONTRACT

Evening Star, Issue 21220, 29 September 1932, Page 8

CONVENT CONTRACT

AN APPEAL CASE BISHOP LISTON THE APPELLANT [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 29. The Court of Appeal is considering the appeal of James M. Liston, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland, from the judgment of Mr Justice Herdman, delivered at Auckland in August last, in an action brought by him against H. R. Jenkins, A. B. Crawford, and W. H. Waterhouse, all of Auckland, formerly trading as the Drury Brick and Tile Company. This litigation was commenced in January last by appellant filing a statement of claim in which he alleged that in May, 1930, he became party to a contract under which respondents agreed to supply 125,000 facing bricks to be used by his builder, Thomas Clements, in the erection of a convent known as the Star of the Sea Convent, at Howick. He averred that the bricks had been supplied subject to conditions which had been broken, and claimed damages of £4OO, this being the estimated sum _ required to remedy the defective exterior walls; and £2OO as loss resulting from being compelled to depart from the architect’s original scheme. In due course, a defence was filed. Four months later appellant filed an amended claim, in which he again alleged that the contract under which respondents were bound to supply the bricks, had been broken. Breach of the conditions was again charged against the respondents, and £1,275 was claimed by way of damages. This sum represented the estimated cost of pulling down the exterior walls of the building, and re-erecting them with suitable bricks. To this claim respondents replied denying that they were ever parties to a contract with appellant, and stating that they did enter into a contract for the supply of bricks with the contractor, Clements, who was to erect the building. They declared that between themselves and the appellant, no privity of contract ever existed. They were sub-contractors only, and responsible to Clements alone. Mr Justice Herdman upheld the contentions of respondents, holding that appellant had failed to prove any privity of contract between himself and them, and he entered a non-suit, with_ costs. From this judgment Bishop Liston is now appealing.