ARCHITECT'S FEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20622, 22 July 1930, Page 12

ARCHITECT'S FEES.

£AYKEL BUILDINGS CASE.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE.

COURT RESERVES DECISION.

The hearing of the claim of Edmund (Rupert Morton, architect (Mr. Finlay), against Max Paykel Buildings, Limited (Mr. Northcroft), for £SBB, balance of fees alleged to be due, was continued before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff had /been engaged to report on the work of tho original architect of the buildings, and to assist the defendant in preparing a case in connection with tho buildings. He mado a charge of £IOO as an inspection and reporting fee, and £663 for professional services, extending over 369 hours at £l2 12s a day. The defendant claimed that plaintiff had been- paid £350 for his services, and that this was amplo remuneration.

Max Paykel, managing director of the ■defendant company, continued his evidence from Friday. Giving an idea of the extent of his business, he said the annual turnover was between £200,000 and '£250,000 a year. lie was always at business before eight o'clock in the morning, and was kept going tho whole clay. Mr. Morton would often stay in his office for three hours at a time, and embarrassed him very much. Witness had to use ingenuity to get him to leave. As (he caso •went on Mr. Morton became part and parcel of it, and know everything. That was on his own initiative. Mr, Morton had never told him that his charges would bo about £SOO. Charges Objected To. In answer to Mr. Finlay, witness said he qxpected that under tho settlement all experts' charges should be met by Mr. Patterson, the original architect, and not by himself. He had frankly resisted every suggestion that ho should have to pay part of tho experts' charges. lie ceased to bo on good terms with Mr.. Morton when he charged witness £SOO for plans he did not use. Witness was on perfectly good terms with Mr. Morton until Mr. Morton presented to him his bill in the Patterson action. He had no reason to complain of Mr. Morton's attention or of his work. Mr. Morton was the only architect except one in Auckland who would have undertaken the work. Witness had expressed the opinion on one occasion that Mr. Ziman was a "jellyfish" in his conduct of tho case, but he idid /not say that to Mr. Morton. ( Mr. Finlay: When was it that you called your lawyer in the case a jellyfish ? Witness • It was after Mr. Morton came in and hammered on my desk and said Mr. Ziman was not doing the right thine;. At a later stage His Honor assured Mr. Ziman that no one seriously accused him of taking a jellyfish attitude, and with this Mr. Finlay heartily agreed. "I was angry, but I concealed it," said the witness, when questioned about his relations with Mr. Patterson. A Barrister's Evidence. When Mr Northcroft called Mr. A. 11. Johnstone, Mr. Finlay said he would object to Mr. Johnstone's evidence if it wa3 to be on the lines indicated by Mr. Northcroft in his opening. ( If he was to speak of Mr. Robertson's opinion of Mr., Morton s work then that was the very matter for His Honor to decide. iThe quality of Mr. Morton's work had never been in issue. It had never been suggested that it was not valuable. His Honor decided to hem- tho evidence Subject to the objection raised. A. H. Johnstone, barrister and solicitor, eaid he had acted as counsel for the defendant in the two original actions. 11l a discussion with witness, Mr. A. L. Robertson, property surveyor, had laughed find said that Mr. Morton's services were of no value whatever. He had been landed a list prepared by Mr. Morton and without much ceremony he had struck out a very great number of the items. Mr. Robertson added that if Mr. Morton had been out of it he could have settled the matter in a short time.

Ralph L. Ziman, barrister and solicitor, who had been solicitor for the defendant for a considerable time, said Mr. Morton had told him frankly of his hostility toward; Mr. Patterson. He remarked more than Vonce that any architect who neglected his work as Mr. Patterson had done should bo exposed. Questions Regarding Fees.

Mr. Morton gave every assistance in drafting terms of settlement, continued witness, but. gave the impression that lie thought the defendant Patterson was be ing let down too lightly.

The witness was examined about his till of charges to Mr. I'aykel for advice at conferences at which Mr. Morton was present. The purport of the evidence was to show that Mr. Morton charged at/ a higher rate ar.rl for longer periods than witness charged for on identical occasions.

Mr. Finlay said ho thought it necessary to reply to the wholesale ami unqualified condemnation of plaintiff indulged in hy Mr. Northcroft in his opening. The language Mr. Northcroft had used was extravagant in tho utmost degree, and (he criticism came ill from plaintiff's erst■while master, who w;is glad to adopt his r,f> vices and then turned and rent him. The whole progress of the case had served to clear Mr. Morton entirely from the altogether unnecessary charge of wanting " to feed fat an ancient grudge" against & fellow professional man. Ilis Ilonor reserved his decision.