CLAIM AGAINST BUILDER

Evening Star, Issue 21723, 18 May 1934, Page 1

CLAIM AGAINST BUILDER

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT PLAINTIFF'S CASE FAILS In the Afagistrate’s Court, yesterday afternoon, before Air J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Renia M‘Farlane proceeded against Charles Robert Sims, builder, for alleged breach of contract and damages in respect to the building of a house at 102 Forth street. Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. King for the defendant. In the statement of claim plaintiff said that on or about October, 1933, sbe entered into a contract with the defendant for the erection of a house at 102 Forth street, Dunedin. The contract provided that the defendant was to receive the sum of £l5O on account of the contract price when the defendant should have the roof on the house. On or about November 27, 1933, plaintiff paid to defendant the sum of £SO to be applied in the purchase of materials to enable the work to be proceeded with. On December 13, 1933, the defendant received from the plaintiff the sum of £5 to be applied in payment for building .permits, and on or about January 5, 1634, he received from the plaintiff the sum of £lO for the purchase of glass and nails. The defendant received from the plaintiff further sums of £1 17s, £1 ss, and 17s on or about November 8, 1933, December 14, 1933, and January 16, 1934, respectively, for the purchase of materials for the work. It was claimed that the defendant had failed to apply the moneys for the purposes for which they were intended, and had converted the total sum of £6B 19s received from the plaintiff to his own use. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £6B 19s damages in respect of that alleged conversion, and in the alternative the sura of £6B 19s received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed the sum of £3, which, it was alleged, -was received by defendant as discount in respect of purchases of building materials from C. AI. Howison and Son Ltd., and the sum of £35 16s 8d dam-' ages for breach of contract, being four weeks’ wages paid at the rate of £4 per week, £4 4s 2d per week, and 15s per week respectively for one carpenter, one bricklayer, and one apprentice. The only witnesses called for the plaintiff were the plaintiff and -Archibald Porteous, a builder, who said that lie was engaged by Airs M'Farlane to complete the building of her house at Forth street. He was not prepared to say that the defendant, had'put faulty work into the building. Air Stevenson asked that the claim for four weeks’ extra work be amended to one week. . • - , • The Magistrate said that lie did not think he could be asked to consider seriouslv the original form of the claim., He had” no detailed records of what had been paid to the contractor and what was nefcessary to finish the job. It was absolutely impossible to ask the court to determine the position between the parties on the evidence before the C °At'this stage counsel said that he was prepared to accept a nonsuit on the third claim, but after reviewing the case further the court entered a nonsuit against the plaintiff on the whole'claim. Costs were allowed, with solicitor’s fee £5 7s, and witnesses expenses £1 Bs.