WHAT WAS IT WORTH?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3561, 28 June 1912, Page 2

WHAT WAS IT WORTH?

— A HOUSE PAINTED AND PAPERED. I CLAIM FOR PAYMENT. At the Magistrate's Court yester<la- before Mr. W- A. Barton,’ S.M., Olaucle Morley Hutchinson (Mr. Coleman) claimed £l4 16s from Albert Michael Lewis (Mr Bernard), as payment for painting and naoering ‘a house at To Karaka. Bernard Tustin, a painter and paperhangcr of 40 years’ experience, said he had visited the house in question and made an estimate of the cost of labor for the work. He estimated the amount of £ls 16s 6d and, after deducting £3 Is as on allowance (which plaintiff had agreed to make), for work in the passage, the amount was £l2 15s. He measured tiro whole of the passage in order to agree on the amount of the deduction. Had he not known of the agreed allowance, he won Id not have made a deduction. He considered the whole of the job as satisfaetoi;y, but believed that proper material had not been provided for the passage work. To Mr. Barnard: It was a “fair, passable job,” but must admit that the hall was not altogether satisfactory. There was no priming visible through the paint on the outside of the house. The outside was a very good job. ' Plaintiff said he took the jpb at no agreed amount of remuneration, and was engaged on the job for over 300 hours. Before painting the outside of. the house, he had to scrape the weather boards. The boards were prime before being put up and the mud adhered to the priming and stuck fast. He had to scrape and sandpaper the ceilings,, and also ply tip with putty and strips of wood, several cracks. This initial work, l>efore painting was commenced, occupied three days. He had made as good a job of the house, as possible, under the circumstances. Of course had lie had the choice of papers, the job would have been different. Defendant refused his first account, and he agreed to make a reduction of £2 6s, on account of the passage being unsatisfactory. The present occupant was on the job frequently. To “Mr Burnard: Plaintiff asked defendant for the job, the arrangement being that he agreed to provide tlj,e necessary labor for the job, defendant to supply the material. He considered ho had done the work in a workmanlike manner. He had had previous experience at painting and

hanging paper. His first vclaim on defendant was £26 or £27 (the increased amount being a confusion with another job); the second account was for £ls 9s 2d, being the full amount claimed for the work. Against this,’ defendant had a contract for £5 4s against him. He did not agree to accept £7 10s, minus the amount of the contra. Susan Hutchinson, wife of defendant, said she was present at Mr. Lewis’s shop after the job was completed, and heard Lewis say lie was satisfied with everything but the passage. She heard her husband name what he thought a fair thing for the job, minus the passage work.p,Defendant said plaintiff approached him for the job of painting and papering the cottage. The job was to give the house three coats of paint, inside and outside, and to scrim and paper the inside. -The best materials were supplied, and the job was an inferior one right through. The oaper was all down in tire hall, and that in all the rooms was coming asunder. He felt certain that only two coats of paint were applied inside. In January last plaintiff gave him an account for £3O odd. A month later, plaintiff presented an account reduced to about £l6. Defendant said this was too high, because ho had had it measured up and found that the iob was worth £lO or

£l2 if completed. As it was it was worth £7 10s, and lie offered plaintiff that sum. Plaintiff then asked for his contra account to date, and it was agreed that defendant should make out the account and have a settlement at the end of the month. Three months later plaintiff’s daughter (a child) came to defendant and asked for her father’s account. Thinking that plaintiff wanted a settlement, he sent the receipted contra account and £1 11s or so with it. Plaintiff refused to accept the money. James Morrison, painter and paperhanger, said there were not the two proper coats of paint on the outside of the house, and that the papering was not properly done. The passage piiper was hanging off, and that in the rooms* had the same tendency. To put the house in its present condition and give the paper a better degree of permanency, it would cost £7 10s approximately. The job lacked the finish of a tradesman. Robert Carlisle, of To Karaka, said | he had visited the house several, times j and found the whole job lacking in ! good workmanship. S. Heffernan (Pului) and F. Morgan (Te Karaka) gave similar evidence.

His Worship, after briefly reviewing the facts, said the question was whether the work had been carried out in a proper manner. He was of opinion that it would take as much to put the house in order as the plaintiff’s work was worth. The question was what was a fair value for the work. Mr Morrison had estimated the work at £7 10s. and Mr Tustin at £l2 15s. His AYorship was perfectly satisfied that the work was not worth more than £7 10s, and he gave judgment for that amount, minus £5 4-s, a contra account, leaving £2 6s. Costs were allowed against plaintiff as follows: Court costs Bs, witnesses’ expenses £1 8s 2d, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is.