COST OF BUILDING.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1921, Page 3

COST OF BUILDING.

CONTRACT OR PER CENT. BASIS? A SUPREME COURT ACTION. • A builder’s claim for a balance to be due in connection with the erection of a house ivas the subject of a case continued in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, by which Jesse Simmons, of Stratford, sought to recover £202 4 s od from Ernest A_. Ward and Eliza. A. AVard. The sum it was claimed, was the balance of £llBl, cost of a five-roomed house built for the defendants. Mr. A. Coleman appeared for plaintiff and Mr. F. C. Spratt for defendants. The. evidence for plaintiff had been concluded on Thursday. Defendant, Ernest A. Ward, laborer, of Stratford, said that when the contract was arranged lie had no property and he had no money to speak of. His wife had a section with the four-roomed cottage, and had £<3oo in the savings bank. Before seeing Simmons he had interviewed other builders and had plans, specifications and prices. He showed these to Simmons, who said witness was being “rooked,” and he told him that he could do a much better job foi’ less money. The plan eventually adopted was for a five-roomed house. Witness was to pay £B5O, give Simmons the use of materials in the old cottage, which were valued at £l5O, and find the shingle for the foundations. Simmons suggested that the work be done on a ten per cent, basis, but witness did not favor this. He approached the State Advances Office for a loan of £7OO, which with his wife’s money would have been a little more than was required to pay for the house. Eventually he got £625, and the difference had been made up by money received from Mrs. Ward’s brother.

When they decided to make the outer walls’ of concrete instead of lathe and plaster Simmons said it would cost £lOO more, but the house would not run into more than £950. He spoke to Simmons about an agreement and this was to be prepared by plaintiff, but every t me witness went to Simmons’ house it was not ready. 'Simmons told him that a ten per cent, job would be cheaper, but witness replied that this was no good to him, as he had a certain amount of money with which to build, and which he (Simmons) had already agreed to. During the work witness did not have any opportunity of Inspecting the time sheets, but he understood his wife had kept some check. He had not been aware that the cost of the house was going to be £ll5O till he heard from Mr. Moss. He made Simmons an offer of £990.

G. M. Chant, Mrs. Ward’s brother, residing at Motueka, said he was present at the house in Stratford when Mrs. Ward asked Simmons what the house was to cost, and he replied that he told Ward it would be £950. Evidence to the effect that Simmons had made statements that the house was to cost £950 was given by Mrs. E. A. Ward, one of the defendants, and W. J. Swindlehurst, laborer, a former employee of plaintiff’s. L. M. Moss, solicitor, Stratford, said he acted for Ward in connection with an application to the State Advances Department for a loan. He wrote a letter to the department stating that the finished cost of the house was £llB5, but this information he received from Simmons and not from Ward. h

At the conclusion of Counsels’ addresses and His Honor’s summing up, certain issues were put to the jury and they answered these in favor of plainafter a retirement of about three quarters of an hour. They found that the agreement between the parties was not on a straight out contract, but on a ten per cent, basis, and that there was no guarantee as to the total cost. They awarded plaintiff £153 19s.

Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, with costa.