Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 376, 26 April 1879, Page 11

The direction of his Honor the Chief Justice to the jury on the 10th issue in the case/jf the Wellington Athemeum and Mechanics’ Institute v. Henry Mace and John Arkell, tried on Thursday iu the Supreme Court, took the jury, and perhaps we should say some of the profession, greatly by surprise. The jury evidently thought, aud indeed said, that tho plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, inasmuch as they had to rets in the stipulated percentages from the progress payments made to the contractor. If the architect had only certified for the sums properly due from time to time plaintiffs would have had ample funds in baud to secure themselves from loss, in which case there would have been no occasion to fall back on the bondsmen. We do not venture to dispute his Honor’s law, but seeing that the architect was in no way under the control of the bondsmeD, and could easily have been, brought to book by the plaintiffs with regard to these excessive progress payments, it certainly appears a hardship that the latter should escape from the consequences of their own neglect by making the bondsmen responsible. If the plaintiff had no check ou the architect it is quite clear that gentlemen of that profession have a dangerous power in their hands, and for the future we fancy contractors may find it difficult to procure hondßmen.