COST OF A PARTI WALL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14344, 14 April 1910, Page 7

COST OF A PARTI WALL.

ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE. •• ' - '' - • 'DISALLOWED BY THE COURT. •'1 ~ ' .At a sitting of .the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Sim, further evidence was taken in . a claim made :by . the trustees in the estate of 'Michael Corcoran, deceased, '- against Adolph . Kohn, for • £501 lsy7d, I representing a half share of the cost of a parti wall between tho Premier Buildings and the defendant's premises in Queenstreet. Tho defendant paid £350 into Court .as representing what he considered a . fair amount," hut the plaintiffs"Yrelied on architoct's certificate Vto recover tho . full amount of the claim. ' V ...'f- i 1 , Dr.''. Bamfc-rd, with " him Mr. Moore, appeared for plaintiffs, and Air. J. R. Reed, with : him Mr. Stanton, * for defendant. -- R. W.. De Montalk:' said 1:© ," was / tho architect for tho erection- of the parti wall in: question,, and had given the certificate. Ho had practised 15. years in Auckland,'and had previously done work:for Mr. Kohn. In tho ; certificate' the' cost- of the wall was estimated at £1003 2s 2d. At tho time .the contract was , made witness made calculations, but declined to . show tho' figures to either -party to the action, because he had .disagreements with defendant, and also bocause ho regarded himself as sole arbiter in the matter. Witness now. produced his estimates for the parti wall. He did not think; it' would be possible for any architect inspecting: the wall now to determine what was tho cost of ■ the wall, becauso many conditions: in connection ; with - the work would not be visible.' • ' •: •. . * Mr:. Justice Sim: Have.you not got, the exact figures you based the price on?.. Do you mean to say you arrived at £1003 2s 2d without calculations? v r Witness: At the time I had certain rough figures which I .worked on bef-tfro arriving at the price in the tender. . /."► Mir. Reed: Then the figures now produced are. not original figures? • - Witness: Yes they are.- This is a finished copy 4 of'' my original calculations after' a conference with Air. Morris,, the contractor. ' Mr;' Reed produced; certain figures' sworn to- by - Air. Diddams/; representing < tho defendant, at. the time, as being supplied by witness. : ' Witness said . he could not swear to the figures, although he thought perhaps the figures were . his. The figures purported to bo an estimate for the parti wall, but lie could hot reconcile them ,with his own. estimates of the cost. . f . > • James Alorris, called for the defence, said ho was the ; successful tenderer * for. tho Protnier - puildings. ■ The contract price was £7596, and the parti wall in question was included vin the contract. ; He made an ostimato at Mr. De Alontalk's request of .the cost ,of the ; wall. ' Witness's;> price r was approximately - £350 vor £360 for the halfshare defendant would have to ■ pay. When Mr. De Alontalk and : witness compared figures ' his (Morris's) 'prices ; were generally ■ lower' ■' Witness understood at the time Air. De Montalk's estimate was about £600 for the • half-share, and he'., told him that , there would be trouble unless the figures were reduced very considerably. . Mr. Do , Alontalk replied there could be no trouble, as* ho was the sole arbiter, since both parties had; signed a, deed. Witness had no recollection of .; telling.' Air. . De Alontalk . that i the wall only cost" him £170 to build.. ; That was absurd. ' - f To Dr. Bamford: He had not included in his estimate . any proportion ~of architect's fees, or extras of any kind. After counsel had addressed the - Court on a number , of legal i. questions, and cited authorities, His Honor reviewed the evidence, and f said he held ' that the certificate 5 given by the . architect was not .an • honest one, but fraudulent. The conduct of Mr. Do Alontalk, :: ho added, was - extraordinary, in-.;so far :as ho -had declined i to, reveal the ; details of ..; his estimate to either party. l * " Air. ;Do ;Montalk," said His Honor, -' must have realised that in this matter his honour had been-impeached, and if he' had acted honestly ho would.;have given the information: to . the : solicitors 'for the parties .when he was applied to for it. , I rule," His Honor added, " that -''defendant 'is not ; bp'und ,by the; certificate ;• given by Sir. Do ■ Montalk." " ■ ' Dr. Bamford made application for permission to call evidenco as to tho actual cost of 'the wall. His .. Honor . consented, and adjourned the case until iriday, at 10.30 a.m. . ;