SRCHITECTS' FEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18657, 13 March 1924, Page 5

SRCHITECTS' FEES.

1 PICTURE THEATRE PLAN* — y-. A---•• • ,v;vy; ; <::h^v "\ -• fr* r* s ,*t?'ri fi QUESTION OF ARRANGEMENT. ;i JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. A claim for professional services rend- :•••••.. ered by a firm of Auckland architects was heard by Mr. Justice "Herdman in : the Supreme Court yesterday. ; Hugh Creswell Grierson and Kenneth ' Walter" ? Aimer {Mr. ' Goulding) sought ,to recover £285 from William Bryant. Berwick (Mr. Hogben) in respect of a projected picture theatre at Newmarket. The statement of claim ; set forth that.. . ;; plaintiffs supplied studies and sketches. ' between March, ,1920, and June, -1922. The estimated cost of the building was £20,000, ; and ; plaintiffs ' contended that ;" £300 was a , reasonable charge for their work. "They had received- £15 on account. — " • • " • In an amended statement of > defence it was admitted that plaintiffs had pre- , . pared a sketch of the proposed building, but it was denied .that any other professional Service . had ; been rendered, at defendant's request. Defendant pleaded that the agreement between plaintiffs and himself was that defendant was to be under no liability for work done unless and until a company should be formed - for the purpose of erecting the theatre, and that' no such company was ever formed. - Defendant .denied that the £15 was* paid on account of plaintiff's ... ser- . vices. _He contended that , that sum was'. paid & ah ex-gratia payment in full settlement of all claims. Kenneth W. Aimer said an. account was rendered to Beswick in f 1922,; and ; the latter said he was expecting to ' sell the property and would ; then settle. Ultimately he sold the site, and the business was taken on by others. Plaintiffs were architects for the purchasers. Cross-examined, plaintiff - denied that * he had . said he was taking on the . work "on spec." It was never suggested that their fees should come from the company, if floated. . The - company . which bought the business was going on w?tU the building of the theatre, and plain- , tiffs would obtain full scale fees from* it. Plans f had been specially • prepared by : plaintiffs for the purchasing company. : He denied that his firm was . asking to be paid twice over. ' Walter B. Beswick, stated % that he arranged thatplaintiffs .; should prepaid sketches in 1920/ but nothing was then arranged 1 about fees. ■ H<} understood ' that plaintiffs were to, be paid by the proposed company, but -if; the company'. ' were not formed . they were, to get nothing- - ' Sydney Alexander JSastgate said he was associated with > the endeavour to float , a picture, company. It was . arranged with plaintiffs .that nothing was to be charged as fees ; unless - ifche company weie . floated. His 'HonOr, in giving - judgment, said ;••• he thought plaintiffs s had made out their claim. .If Beswick went , to : Aimer and employed him without making a. special > arrangement he was bound •to pay the , ordinary -charges. Whv did Beswick pay £15 : if he were ; only; to . pay- v the charge in th« event of. the company; being : > floated. His Honor entered judgment . for plaintiffs . for ? the amount . claimed, with costs. . ._• . ,