LATE COURT NEWS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1189, 14 December 1894, Page 16

LATE COURT NEWS.

SUPREME COURT.

«. — ' ACTION FOR <£2oo DAMAGES. His Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury of four, consisting of Joseph Wm. Bridge (foreman), John Manttan, Arthur Thomas Bate and Geo. Bodley, were engaged on Tuesday in hearing an action brought by John McGregor and Wm. Newton, builders, to recover from Edmund Percy Bunny, solicitor, <£2oo damages for alleged breach of agreement. The defendant made a counter-claim of .£2OO for breach of contract, <£4B as penalty or damages for exceeding by some four months the contract time and £39 14s in respect of omissions of material and work agreed upon with the architect. Mr Izard appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. Mr Izard, in opening the plaintiffs’ case, explained that in October, 1893, the plaintiffs contracted to build a villa at the Lower Hutt for the defendant for the sum of £535 10s, according to plans and specifications prepared by Mr David Ross. This contract did not provide for a verandah, and a subsequent contract was therefore entered into for the construction of a verandah for £36. The work had not proceeded very far before trouble arose. The building was to have been completed by the end of January, 1894, but it was not finished by the end of May, and this delay the plaintiffs alleged was due to the various alterations made in the contract. On the 2nd of June the architect resigned, giving- as a reason interference by Mr and Mrs Bunny with the contractors. On the 26th June the defendant took the work out of the contractors’ hands.

The statement of defence alleged that the plaintiffs did not proceed with sufficient despatch, and the architect, in exercise of the power g-iven him, on the 26th June, 1894, took the contract out of plaintiffs’ hands, and he and the defendant had expended more than the balance of the contract moneys in completing it. A counterclaim was therefore put in to recover the amounts specified above. The' plaintiff gave evidence; and his cross-examination lasted the whole of the afternoon.

The Court adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning, when the case was further considered and again adjourned.