MARTON COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8769, 22 March 1907, Page 3

MARTON COURT.

o Before Mr Stajiford, S.M. AN ARCHITECT'S CLAIM. The -whole day ou Thursday was occupied at Marton Court with a case dealing with the matter of instructions 'to architects." 1 T. S. Lambert, Wellington, sued Abraham tmd Williams, Ltd., for £63 15s, architect's fees of £lO fcharge by time) and £SO (chargo by jjouimission) and for £3 15s for payr jnents made by him in the matter of certain plans and specifications drawn by him of new business premises proposed to be erected by tho defendants at Marten. Defendants paid into Court £lO and 7s costs in satisfaction of what they alleged was a fair remuneration of plaintiff's liability. Mr Lyon appeared for plaintiff and Mr Lougluian for defendants. -.Plaintiff gave evidence on his own Tp'eiialf: and 'the evidence of--thr-se. Wellington architects, taken at Wellington, was also tendered for him. Plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that Mr Barnes, the manager at Marton for defendants, had consulted him on the condition of the; attendants; existing buildings and' as jt'o'tho best method of dealing with them arid had announced the defen : Sant's' intention of rebuilding soon ; Hjjit; wider instructions from Mr Jlarpeshs "(plaintiff) had called cm filr Abraham the defendants' mauaging director at Palmerston, and an appointment had been made to go into the whole matter at Marten; that Mr Abraham had attended at Marton and a full discussion had |aken place there upon the matter pd measurements were taken for gisw "premises to be built in brick pud Mr Abraham definitely instructed jiini to prepare plans and. speciftca. tions, winch he tlid, that Mr Abra--ham, when the plans and specifications were, subsequently tendered to him, denied that no nan omelcTi.

drawings and refused to pay. was cross examined at length by Mr- Loughnan. • At the conclusion of plaintiff's ea.--,o Mr Loughnan moved for a nonsuit on the grounds-(1) that there was fio proof that- tho 'Company itself was legally liable; (2) that there was no proof that plaintiff had been authorised to draw plans and specifications. Mr Lyon was [proceeding to reply to these contentions when His Worship said that he thought it desirable to hear the evidence to be offered on behalf of defendants.

E. S. Abraham, managing director r of defendants, admitted that plaintiff ' had called on him at Palmerston as | the proposed new buildings ; that ; an apuointmont had been made and ' that lie and plaintiff had proceeded ' to Marton and had gone with witness over the existing buikings and site and that plaintiff had taken various measurements, but witness denied ' that he had ever given instructions for plans and specifications and said that all he had asked the plaintiff to provide was an estimate of the cost of new buildings ; that plaintiff had never submitted such estimate though he had tendered plans and specifications after a lapse of nearly two years and that witness at once informed him that such elaborate plans and specifications had not been ordered. 1 A. Barnes also gave evidence onl behalf of defendants. : - The S.M. gave judgment for ylaintiff for • the amount only that had been paid into Court, viz., £lO and V's costs and allowed the defendants £3l Qs' 9d Costs. He said that ho was Satisfied defendants' instructions had ptdy been for an estimate and not for plans and "specifications.