MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23568, 3 August 1938, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, August 2 (Before Mr J..R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment for the plaintiffs was given in the following undefended cases:— H. Wise and Co.. Ltd.. v. I. Ban (Morrinsville), claim £1 10s, for advertising services rendered, with costs (12s): Silver Band Taxi Company. Ltd., v. E. Baird, claim Bs, for taxi hire, with costs (8s): Islip and Watt v. L. Fowler, claim £1 Is, for goods sunplied, with costs (9s): Enterprise Service Station. Ltd., v. C. McLean, claim £6 15s lid, for balance owing on goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES Thomson, Bridger and Co.. Ltd., proceeded against F. J. O'Brien on a judgment summons, claiming the sum of £1 9s.—The defendant was ordered to pay forthwith the amount owing, with costs (7s), in default two days' imprisonment. W. V. Forrester proceeded against F. H. Leo on a judgment summons, claiming the sum of £lO 15s.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount owing, together with costs (225), in default 12 days' imprisonment. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT Brookes and Fitzpatrick, contractors, proceeded against Maud Emmeline Bain, widow, claiming the sum of £32 9s 9d for alleged breach of contract by the defendant in respect of the erection of a garage In Queen street. —Mr W. Ward appeared for the plaintiffs, and; Mr I. B. Stevenson for the defendant.—The statement of claim stated that in November last the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to erect a garage for the price of £67 10s. The plaintiffs commenced work and provided materials for the erection of the garage, and were at all times ready and willing to proceed with and complete the contract. Under instructions from the defendant, the plaintiffs ceased work, and without notice or warning to them the defendant had the garage completed by other contractors. In consequence of the breach of contract, the plaintiffs suffered damage- and claimed, the sum of £32 9s 9d, made up of £l6 9s 3d for materials and wages and £25 for general damages, less £9 paid on account.—Mr Ward said that the plaiu-a tiffs were contractors in a small way. They had been told to interview Mrs Bain concerning the erection of a garage on her property. They discussed the matter with the defendant and gave her a price of £67 10s for the work, which was accepted. They had asked Mrs Bain if a permit had been obtained and she replied that one had bee:, taken out. The City Council authorities had found fault with the position of the building and the quality of the work. Work was stopped temporarily and the plaintiffs did not hear any more about it until they saw that other builders were carrying on with the building—Evidence was given by ; Albert Edward Brookes and Joseph Michael Fitzpatrick, the plaintiffs.— Mr Stevenson applied for a non-suit on two points. The contract was voided through illegality in that the work was proceeded with without a permit from the governing authorities. If the contract were not voided through illegality then it was voided because of the contractors' negligence in failing to obtain a permit. The second point was that the work was stopped . through pool workmanship, which was admitted by the plaintiff Brookes. In such a case the owner could successfully defend t claim for breach of contract. The specifications were drawn up by Brookes, who was bound to protect the owner by ensuring that the building would be safe for the purpose for which it was erected. It was negligence on his part to enter into the erection of a building that was defective.—The magistrate said that as the case stood the plaintiffs could not be non-suited.— Evidence was given by Leslie Douglas Coombs, building inspector employed by the City Corporation, Thornton John Palmer, engineer on the City Corporation's staff, by the defendant, and by Frederick Joseph Williams, surveyor.—ln non-suiting the plaintiffs the magistrate said that as no permit had been obtained the contract could not be enforced from the start. He could not understand the contractors proceeding with the contract in these circumstances. It had been stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant had said that she had obtained a permit, but he could not accept that statement. The plaintiffs, therefore, would be non-suited. The defendant was allowed costs <£: 7s) and solicitors fees (£3 3s).