BUILDER’S CLAIM

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11527, 24 May 1923, Page 3

BUILDER’S CLAIM

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. MOTION TO SET VEDDICT ASIDE. Evidence was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve in regard to a claim made by Stephen Augustus Harris, a builder t-nd contractor, against Roy Barter, o motor mechanic, for moneys alleged to be unpaid in respect of the price of building a house at Northland. Barber also entered a counter-claim. Messrs A W. Blair and R. Kennedy appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr O. C. Mnrengarb for the defendant. Tho plaintiff stated that he carried out the agreement and executed the work to be done in and about the erection of the dwelling and supplied or procured the materials and labour. He estimated the total cost at ,£2769 and alleged that £969 15s 4d was still due. He therefore ask ed for judgment for <£969 15s 4d: for JE72 being the interest due to November 30th, 1921, and the interest due up to tho date of judgment, or payment. The defendant alleged that it was agreed that the actual price of the dwelling was not to exceed <£lsoo, and that the defendant had carried out his part of the agreement. He stated that the plaintiff had not performed the customarv duties in connection with the work and did not exercise skill and judgment in tho purchase and selection of materials. The excels over the estimate was due to the failure of the plaintiff to observe the conditions and stipulations. He therefore claimed the same amounts a? sot out in the statement of claim. After hearing the evidence His Honour, with the consent of the parties, naked the jury to give their verdict on the following issue, and after a retirement of two hours they answered as follows: Did tho plaintiff Harris undertake as p< rts of his contract with the defendant Barber that the building should be completed for a sum not exceeding .£ISOO. exclusive of what the defendant expressly understood to supply or bear the cost of himself.—Yes. Mr Blair then asked leave to move that tho verdict be set aside.

His Honour therefore adjourned the action for further consideration and allowrw the plaintiff fourteen days in which lo move.