SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8544, 26 March 1908, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON—WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr Justice, Cooper.) Ernest Larcomb (Mr Innes) claimed from Henry Coles (Mr Moore, instructed by Mr Hawkins) a sum or £265 for work done. The statement of claim was to the effect that defendant was indebted to plaintiff for the sum of £265 for work done and services rendered by the plaintiff as architect to the defendant in the preparation of plans and the supervision and the erection of premises. . i .i i. For the defence it was denied that defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for the sum named, and it was asserted that ho was not indebted at all. The statement of defendant affirmed that plaintiff offered his services as architect to defendant and offered to prepare such plans and specifications as were approved, by and accepted by defendant and to call tenders for the work for- 2£ per cent, on the amount of tho accepted tender. The amount of the accepted tender was £3998. Tho plaintiff rendered his account for £99 19s, being 2£ per cent, on tho £3998* and had been paid that amount, for which he gave his receipt. The plaintiff did not supervise the erection of the building, and if he prepared three sets of plans he did so on his own responsibility, with a view to getting defendant to accept his

_ plans. Tho following evidence was called for the plaintiff: — Ernest Larcomb, architect, stated that in 1906 defendant had asked him to prepare plans and specifications for his building. He replied that he would do so for 2g per cent, and a further per cent, for supervision. Defendant told him he would not be required to supervise as ho would get his own man. Two sets of plans were prepared, which were submitted to Mr Coles, tho cleva.v tion of the last of these was taken from a photo of the Imperial Hotel in Napier, wjiich defendant did not like. The second set was partially completed, bat the first set was all in pencil, and ho treated them as one and charged accordingly. Alterations had to bo effected, and Mr Coles gave him to understand that he would recompense rim for his trouble. Witness was v,-. ><'Ed by a scale of charges as laid down by tho Architects' Institute. He preypared a second ' set of plans, which, after examination, Mr Coles stated -./crcf not satisfactory, whereupon witness told defendant it was not possible to alter them, and a third set would have 'O lc prepared. Defendant g-ave him to understand that he believed" in paying a man for his work. This third set of plans had been taken away by defendant, and witness did not get Ir-oin back until after the building was ihi.-sh-ed. Defendant did not approve of iho third let, and witness made a fourth set. The third set could not have been adopted for the fourth, as there wero some material differences between tho two. As soon as tho contract was signed he sent in an account for per cent, on the contract price, which was paid. This did not include tho other three plans. Defendant was in the habit of constantly calling at his office after the building was started to ask his advice as to various portions of the work that were being carried on. He had also inspected some timber, and generally considered ho had supervised the work. Witness had given no certificate for payment because it had not been asked for, neither had he received any -payment beyond the 2g per cent. He had called at Mr Coles' office and suggested that ho make' a further payment. This Mr Coles objected to, and stated that ho Considered witness was well paid for his work.

To Mr Moore: He had not told Mr "Colos that he would charge him the same as Messrs Holben and Kirk for their job. His charge for that wa.? £100. but the job was not so complicated as Coles'. He considered ho was in charge of the building as he had prepared the plans, called tenders and supervised the work. Ho. sent in the first account on August 2nd, which had been settled. Another account was sent in on September 13th of £105, and still another on September 16th for £160:

Andrew Jack, plumber, stated that he was sub-contractor for tho plumbing work in connection with Coles' building. He had boon carrying on work there, since the foundations were laid, find had scon Mr Larcomb (here frequently. He could not say whether tho instructions he received came from Mr Larcomb, but had seen him frequently in company with Mr Coles.

To Mr Moore: Mr Larcomb had told him at the commencement of tho work that he wns not mpervising it

Joseph J. Powick stated ho had boon foreman on the work during tho whole time of its construction. Mr Clarke had been there sometimes, but had given no definite instructions, although sometimes they had talked matters over. All his instructions about the work came from Mr Larcomb. A considerable amount of extra work had been done, and witness ct.nsulted Mr Larcomb on each occasion, although he went to Mr Coles first. All instructions- ani alterationr wero taken from plaintiff, who was thero four or five times a week. The alterations consisted of adding more rooms to the front and a big room to tho back of the building.

Alexander Jamc-s, architect, Feilelirur, after examining the plans, gave it as his opinion that the three seta were worth from £60 to £65. An architect's work in supervising consisted in taking the responsibility of the whole work and carrying it successfully through. The Court then adjourned for tho day.