FRENCH POLISHING

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 May 1942, Page 2

FRENCH POLISHING

FIRM’S ACCOUNT CHALLENGED.

Expert information regarding the art of French polishing was given in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, yesterday, when Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., commenced the hearing of a case in which the account submitted by a Greymouth firm was challenged by a client, who alleged an overcharge. The plaintiff was G. L. Schaef (Mr. A. M. Jamieson), and the defendant was Thomas Heiniger (Mr. W. Douglas Taylor). , . , A total of £lOl/13/10 was claimed; £56/6/3 was for French polishing, the balance being for cost of fittings, including pelmets, china cabinets, shaving cabinet, and materials supplied. ~ J Mr. Jamieson said that plaintiff claimed £lOl/13/10 in respect of certain French polishing, cabinetmaking and internal decorating work done at the modern home built for Heiniger in Lydia Street. Defendant approached plaintiff’s manager and ultimately engaged the firm to carry out the work. Mr. Gunn, the manager, declined to give a definite quotation, but it was agreed that the work should be carried out at the contract price of 5/- per hour. After the agreement was reached, defendant pressed for some indication of the likely cost. Noticing nine doors in the factory, defendants asked if they could be polished for £l2. Gunn replied, “I dare say we could.” Mr. Jamieson submitted that that should not be taken as a definite quotation. If so, it should only refer to nine doors. The 5/- per hour agreement was admitted by defendant. He now claimed that a big overcharge had been made, and a number of items were disputed. Plaintill charged for 225.1 hours at 5/- per hour. A French polisher from Christchurch made an independent estimate of the time required lor the work, and placed it at 220 hours. Mr. Jamieson said the essence of the case was that the arrangement was made to charge 5/- per hour, and that was all that was charged. It had been agreed to put the time-books of the employees into Court, instead of calling the men as witnesses. Evidence for plaintiff was given by Charles N. Gunn, manager of the company since 1913. He said that they did a big percentage of the French polishing on the West Coast. This was the first time he had appeared in Court, the Company’s accounts never previously having been disputed. One of Ihe reasons he did not give defendant a definite Quotation was because his experience had shown that, in such work, there were generally additions and variations made during the progress of the work. It was finally agreed by Heiniger that the price of 5/- per hour, was fair and reasonable. The conversation as to the nine doors took place after the contract price was agreed upon. A reasonable estimate for those doors would be £l4. , , Numerous items set out in the statement of claim, and in connection with which disputes had arisen, were explained to the S.M., costs and profits being given. Witness swore that the time shown was worked, that the material was used, and that the charges were fair and reasonable. He gave technical details of the work carried out. Heiniger wanted nothing but the best work and he received it. Witness was proud of the way in which his men had carried out the 'i°lt was decided that the S.M. should make an inspection of the house, during the luncheon adjournment. On resuming, Mr. Taylor cross-ex-amined witness at length on details ol the work done. Oscar John Palmer, French polisher, of Christchurch, said he had been 18 years in the trade, and had worked for specialists in high-grade furniture. Witness estimated that the work done for Heiniger would take approximately 220 hours, there being about 800 spuare feet of polishing included. The job was well up to standard, and the time occupied was reasonable. Evidence for plaintiff was also given by Thomas Sotheran, joiner, Greymouth, who said he had had over 30 years’ experience.

CASE FOR DEFENCE Mr Taylor said the case for the defendant was that an illustration of the cost was given so far as the doors were concerned, and defendant from that basis worked out the total cost. It was no doubt done unconsciously, but nevertheless it was contended that the effect of the illustration given was to mislead Heiniger. Arthur Donald Tucker, furniture manufacturer, of Christchurch, said he learnt his trade in the Old Country, and had been in business 20 to 25 years. In his opinion, a good job was done by Schaef’s, but the time occupied on some parts of the work was too long. He could not account for the 225} hours taken on the .job. Witness could have given a _ definite quotation, within £5, for a job suck as that done for Heiniger. He could do the polishing for £25, and still make a lair, average trade profit. To Mr. Jamieson: His men could do as good a job in 80 hours, as Gunn’s men had done in 225} hours. It would be done in the same way, by hand. The charge made of 5/- per hour was too reasonable, and witness would suggest 7/6 per hour. He thought there must be something radically wrong with Gunn’s men, judging by the time they took on the job. If they had to go anywhere else to work, “Heaven help them!” ' They would probably get plenty of work at the present time, but it would be different in normal times. Mr. Jamieson pointed out that Schaef’s factory had been operating for 30 years or more, and had been selling its products. He was at a loss to understand the wide discrepancy between the statements of witness and those of Gunn, regarding the time taken. To Mr. Taylor, witness said that the figures he had given were fair, competitive prices. He did not employ “supermen” in Christchurch, but they could do the polishing in much shorter time than that taken by Gunn’s mon. If he had been staying longer in Greymouth, he would have been willing to prove his statements, by a personal demonstration.

Francis L. Bell, building contractor. Greymouth, who constructed Heiniger’s house, said the only indication Gunn could give as to the cost of polishing was that a double-sided door would take four hours. Mr. Jamieson pointed out that Gunn and Palmer had said it was impossible to polish two sides of a door in four hours.

Further questioned, witness said he could not swear definitely that Gunn said four hours.

At 5.15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until next week, on a day to be arranged.