CLAIM FOR CONTRACT MONIES

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 28 February 1935, Page 6

CLAIM FOR CONTRACT MONIES

QUESTION OF PARTNERSHIP. HOUSE ERECTED IN 1932. The alleged non-payment of the portion of a sub-contract let in connection with the building of a house in 1932 in Nolantown for a man named Brogden was the subject of a hearing at the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr W. H. Woodward, S.M., when B. H. Westwood took action against Stening and Moore for its recovery. Plaintiff was represented by Mr L. A. Taylor, while Stening’s counsel was Mr M. Niccol and Mr F. W. Horner watched the interests of Moore. In stating ttic case for the plaintiff, Mr Taylor said that there wore two issues to be decided. First, there was the question as to whether there was a partnership between the two defendants and secondly whether the debt could be recovered. The building had been erected for a man named Brogden, and after the contract had been let, Stening asked Westwood whether he would reduce his tender by 30s as lie wanted Westwood to do the plumbing. This plaintiff had agreed to do and the work was proceeded with and completed. There had been no complaints which had not been attended to immediately. Of the contract price Westwood had received £4O on account and the sum involved was £l7 15s, the balance of the price agreed upon. There had been a question about the installation- of a bath, it being stated that the specified bath was not put in, but when the matter was pointed out to plaintiff, it had been immediately rectified. The job was actually completed in June, 1932, and the money had been owing since that time. Balfour H. Westwood, plumber, in evidence said that the work had been done in June, 1932. Stening had told witness that he could have the job if the price was reduced by £1 10s, as another tenderer was that much below the tender of witness. This witness agreed to do, and the -work was done. There had been no complaints except two minor details which had been attended to by witness personally. An amount of £4O had been paid on account, which loft a balance of £l7 15s, | regarding the payment of which Stcn- 1 ing had seen witness, the latter giving him time in which to pay it. The completed work had been passed without by the health inspector. Moore had tol'd witness that he had paid half of the sundry expenses in connection with the work, and had also stated that as the contractors had not done too well out. of the job, that | his (Moore’s) father had done the cart- 1 age without payment. Moore ha-d also said he had arranged with Stening that lie would pay £4 10s of the amount owing if Stening would pay the balance. To Mr Horner, witness said he had not known Moore in connection with the contract until the work was com-! meneed. All of the preliminary do- j tails had been arranged by Stening. Witness did not know how much cart-1 ing had been done by Moore’s father. Stening had not made any suggestion that Moore would have anything to do with borrowing money in order to pay | the balance of the account. Witness was sorry that Moore had been brought into it, and had not boon at his instigation, but by that of Mr Taylor. Mr Horner Now we are getting at the truth of the matter. Mr Horner intimated that he had no further questions, and Mr Niccol began his cross-examination. Witness told Mr Niccol that lie did not have a Doulton hath, as specified, in stock and had put in the best one lie had. When he was informed that the bath was not according to specifications, the alteration was made withintwo hours. It was not. a habit of witness to •comniebae a job and not complete it.

Re-examined by Mr Taylor, witness said he had never received a letter from

cither of the defendants to the effect that payment would be held' up until the bath was changed. Annie Westwood, wife of the previous witness, gave evidence that Stening had stated that he would borrow the money with which to pay the balance of the account owing to plaintiff. Stening had definitely stated that he would “square up”, with Westwood for the job. Stening had also stated on one occasion that as he had done all the running about in connection with the contract that he should be entitled to the discounts. To Mr Niccol, witness said that at no time had plaintiff to her knowledge received .notico from .the Government that the .payment would be held up through any fault of his. This closed the case for the plaintiff. (Proceeding.)