MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23973, 26 August 1941, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 26. (Before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M.) DEFAULT* CASES. Judgment by default, with costs, was entered in the following cases:—Victor Nelson Ltd. v A. M‘Donald,'£2o, for goods supplied; Chas. Begg and Co. Ltd. v. M. Scott, £2 ss, for goods supplied. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. Claiming £95 I6s 3d alleged .as the balance owing for work done in connection with the erection of a house in. Kenmnre road, Thomas John Traill, a builder, proceeded against Richard John Stevenson to recover the amount. The defendant admitted £62 17s 9d of the claim, but denied that the balance was owing. He entered a counterclaim for £ll2 17s 6d as damages arising out of allegedly defective workmanship. Mr F. W. M'Elrea appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. J. L. White for the defendant. Plaintiff in evidence stated that there were three sets of plans and specifications relating to the dwelling. The first was prior to August, 1939, but this was not suitable. In August of that year a second plan and specification was drawn up. This was a plan and general specification handed him by the defendant. It was the property of the State Advances Department. Defendant asked for a price. The specifications could be applied to any house of the type, and were a general indication of what the State Advances required. Witness gave a price of £1,056 os.' He told defendant that if he was going on with the job he would need to have prepared a detailed plan and specification. This was arranged between them. In February. 1940, the third and final specification was drawn up. This was the one finally adopted. A copy of this was deposited with the building authorities for the purposes of a permit. One copy was used on the job. Defendant lived on the section, and never once during building did he' say the house was being built to the wrong specifications. Plaintiff went on to detail the alterations made in the general specifications (the second ones) to meet the requirements of the plan ultimately adopted. The third (and final) set of specifications also were detailed by the plaintiff, which showed material differences from the second set. The hearing is proceeding.