THE COURTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6749, 22 February 1909, Page 8

THE COURTS

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20. SUPREME COURT-CIVIL {Before hi(j Honor Air Justice Cooper.) TROUBLES OF A CONIIUCXOU. HTACXTON AND KINO v. WELLINGTON EDUCATION BOARD. Mr T. M. Wiitonl, with him Mr F. ) y .n)i|K'iiirc(l for the pknuilf.s, V>ti•i.iin .(rims Staunton ami Jl. D. KingI Mr If. I'. Johnston appeared lor the tL.-iimiaul, hon.nl. 'Cl,in suit, which wascommenced early l;L,t week wa.s hronglit on i» quantum meruit with rut alternative claim for an implied warranty. I’lirinliffs had c. hiuuoicd with tho Wellington Education limn'd to remove a schoolhousc )io.ri one site at tho Upper iintt to •iint,i iior i.ito in tho .saimi district, but annie roMsideraf)]o distance away, lor lh(- -Hill of £'2»fi Bs. The specified-, tint'a upon which the contract was l.aaii (<roviiletl that there ithoilld ho no all ■ration in the design ef the buildim*. but that all decayed timber ivas ro ho replaced with new wood, and tin- plne.es where, such decay wan likely to be found were indicated. Tho conli u-loea commenced their work hub ivh. n bite linings wore stripped elf they- found that practically tho whole of the building was worm-eaten ami that virtually a new building was required. Tho re-erection ol (die old budding was stepped by the inspector fur tho Hutt Town Board. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants then altered their plana and proceeded to erect a now- school, and in carrying out that work made use ef seme timber tdiab had brim left on the ground by plainlills. lMa.int.ilfs said they had received no payment for tho work they lead done and hud rot been refunded tho £7 Ids paid as deposit. Pltiintilis ’ claimed LUX lbs lid. The defence was that plaintiffs had not done anything like the amount of work they claimed for. After tho accident when part of the building was blown down l»y a gale of wind the contractors wore .wen by certain members ef tho board, who found dia.t tbu plaintiffs wore in difficulties, and that it was obvious they would net bo able to complete their work. Plaintiffs asked tho board to make some arrangement, as they «>uld not go on with tho contract; if they did it would land them in bankruptcy. ft was very ncoosKary that the building should he completed quickly, n.s accommodation was much 'required for the Upper Xtutt school children, and consequently the mattsirj could not bo hung up indefinitely. Aa to tho quality of timber actually decayed in the old building the proportion was really from 8| to 8 per cent, which was vastly different from tho estimate of 70 per cent, made by plaintiffs who had no knowledge of the amount of timber in the building. Tho method adopted by plaintiffs 'in carrying out tho work was questionable, because if they were entitled to a quantum meruit it would not be a question of the money they foolishly expended but of the value of the work they had done. The taking of evidence was concluded. His Honor, addressing counsel, said tho' main question that had arisen during tho hearing was as to tho meaning of tho term “decayed fcim-’ her" as it is used in tho building trade,and as to whether it included “wormeaten timber.” There was another point tho parties should consider and that was, assuming that tho contract was rendered impossible of completion by reason of the gnlo of wind that blow down portion of the building, whether the board could under the conditions retain tho building material that belonged to the plaintiffs, which it appeared they had done. ■ The further tearing of tho case was ordered to stand over until a day to bo fixed. CLAIM FOR A LOST LEGACY. BRIDGE v. BOOTH AND THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE. In this case Air H. F. Von Haast appeared for tho plaintiff, Nancy Bridge, who in a widow and seventy-four years of age. AH’ W. H. D. Beil appeared for the defendants, Alfred Booth (plaintiff’s brother) and for the Public Trustee. Plaintiff claimed £203 and interest, tho balance of a legacy loft to her by her late fatter, and of which it was alleged Alfred Booth and tho Rev. William Booth (now deceased) wore trig-decs. Tho plaintiff's claim was directed against Alfred Booth as a member of the saw-milling firm of Booth and Co., of Taratahi, Wairarapa. and afpunsb tho Public Trustee as trustee ef tho estate of tho lato Rev. ‘William Booth. Plaintiff’s story was that her husband was a weaver in Stockport, England. Her fatter and the rest of her family tamo out to Now Zealand, -Stic remained in England with her 'husband. After her father’s death in 1379, sho learned that ho had loft her a legacy of £3OO. Sho came out to Now Zealand with her daughter, and inv met by her brothers at Carterton, where they wore concerned in a sawmilling business. Plaintiff stated that her brothers suggest,cd to her that d.o should talto up the management of a store in connection with the sawmill which had previously boon managed by a person named Eagle, and was owned by her brothers. Although sho was an illiterate women—could neither _ read nor write—sho accepted the position of manageress, and hold it for eight months, when sho heard that her husband was ill, and, leaving the store, with all its contents, as it stood, sho returned to England. There was no written agreement entered into betv.rrn eiaintiff and her brothers, and she did not know tho value of the goods loft in tho store; no valuation of them was made, and nothing was said by cither of her brothers to load ter to understand that tho gotxls belonged to,her. They did not tell her that she owed them any money, or that the value of tho goods supplied to her by them would bo charged against her legacy. William Booth paid her passage "and that of her daughter, and sho expected that sum would bo deducted from her legacy. She had never given any document agreeing to the anticipation of her legacy. Tho defence was that plaintiff came out to Now Zealand, and expressed a desire to settle herself in business in a store in Carterton, but had nob sufficient funds for tho purpose. She applied to Alfred Booth and to Booth and Co., and requested them to make an advance to her against her legacy of £3OO, which was not then payable to her, as her mother was still aJivc, Plaintiff agreed to pay interest upon such advances, and it was accordingly a freed between plaintiff and Messrs Booth and Co. and Alfred Booth that Messrs Booth and Co. should make advances in money, and supply plaint’ll

with stores on credit, and tho plaintiff .should pay interest on such advances and on the price of tho goods. Defendants were prepared to account lor the moneys advanced, and for tho repayment of which they had been willing to wait until the legacy became payable. Defendants had no idea of going into .storekeeping, and did not con tin no the store after plaintiff loft New Zealand. According to the accounts there was a tremendous loss on tho -store, and the whole of the legacy bequeathed to Mrs Bridge (with the exception of £32 sent her by draft when sho was in England) was paid out in respect of her indebtedness in cornu etion with the store.

The taking of evidence was concluded, and ills Honor said lie would deter file hearing of counsel in argument until a day to bo fixed; but it

.. l-j. -an a, l-> him" that the centra! facts of the case were as to tho influence of tho brothers upon their sister, and as to whether there v. as or was not an agreement made. Tho further hearing of tho matter was adjourned sine die.